The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎. It is pretty clear where this is going at this point. A move discussion might be a better discussion to have. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a limited scope, insufficient sourcing, duplication of information, and lack of maintenance. The article fails to provide unique or verifiable content regarding the relationship between Google and Wikipedia, and its inclusion adds redundancy and offers little value to readers. There isn't anything this from article that can't be covered by the articles Google and Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't follow the nominator's argument, at all:
  • This article has a limited scope – this is usually a good thing?
  • [...] insufficient sourcing, fails to provide [...] verifiable content – as of writing the article cites 16 sources. There is one unsourced passage (which I've just tagged), everything else is supported by at least one inline citation.
  • duplication of information, there isn't anything this from article that can't be covered by the articles Google and Wikipedia – a truism that applies to any article about the relationship between two independently notable entities. We could write about the relationship between Wikipedia and Google in Wikipedia and Google, but we don't (because it would be undue in both), and if we did it would arguably be more duplicative (because we'd need sections in both).
  • The article fails to provide unique, its inclusion adds redundancy – appears to allude to WP:CFORK, but there isn't an article that duplicates this article's scope (i.e. Wikipedia and Google), and redundancy is sometimes a good thing
  • lack of maintenance – WP:IMPATIENT, though this doesn't seem particularly un-maintained compared to the average article

So in the absence of a coherent argument for deletion, I default to keep. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The multiple reliable secondary sources over many years establish the relationship in a verifiable way. Also, no need to try to shoehorn much of this information into other articles. In fact, one can also think of this as an WP:OKFORK from both articles. (We would not want Google's relationship with Wikipedia and Wikipedia's relationship with Google growing as separate) —siroχo 08:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - joe and siroxo have pretty much covered all there is to it - no reason to delete, and very much reason to keep around. Frzzl talk · contribs 09:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If page closes, it's no consensus BMarGlines (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sufficient secondary coverage ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but article could use improvement, for example many of the references are WP:PRIMARY. Should probably also be moved to another title such as Google-Wikipedia relations. - Indefensible (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.