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 keep. Sandstein 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googlepedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article describes a Firefox add-on (the term "Googlepedia" also has other unrelated meanings). The article has been tagged for primary sources and notability since August 2011, and the article's original author (Rio) is no longer active here. I've not been able to find reliable independent sources to assess notability. According to its Mozilla add-ons listing page the product itself was last updated in July 2010. Pointillist (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pointillist (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now discovered that the original author is still active on the Korean-language wikipedia, so I've left a message in case s/he would like to take part in this discussion. - Pointillist (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found four mentions in 2009 (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10135589-2.html, http://www.pandia.com/sew/291-top-5-extensions.html, http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/step-by-step/1907077/add-wikipedia-entries-google-search-results, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052703653.html). It apparently broke in Fall 2010 when Google came out with Instant Previews. Question is whether a no-longer-available add-on is sufficiently notable. - Pointillist (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is not temporary, so we must consider the amount of coverage and perhaps its span, but not its age or lack of current availability. Will we care about this defunct add-on in 2014 or 2019? Seems unlikely to me. When I see a topic like this I wish we would set the bar a little higher. – Pnm (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way of predicting what people will want information on in the future. That's why, when we have sufficient sources to show that something every did attract attention to be notable, we include it. encyclopedias are works of record, designed to provide what might be wanted. I'd estimate that 10 years from now nobody will care about 90% of the currently notable people in Wikipedia--though they might care a generation later. Nobody in the 1930s or 40s thought people would ever care about the current comic strips. People always say with respect to new music, that though it may be popular for a year, nobody will care later on. The subsequent generation usually proves both of these wrong. Coming closer to home, people dismantled the early computers, assuming that nobody would ever be interested. Coming even closer to home, most libraries discarded old encyclopedias when the newer ones came out, and they still tend to do that with printed books of all sorts. It's a good thing we're not paper. As for this topic, nobody has written a book on the history of firefox add-ons yet; if the past history of technology is any predictor, it's almost certain that someone someday will--preservation of information on ephemeral things is one of the justifications for our existence. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the references presented in this AFD, it would appear that it is verified to be notable. Would be nice if someone worked those references in, so the tags can be removed as well. Whether or not it is being maintained or still exists is not relevant for inclusion, as has been pointed out above. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references listed by Pointillist. It was notable in 2009 when those were written (barely over the bar, but it clearly made it). And once notable, always notable. We don't want to consciously bias Wikipedia toward contemporary subjects, do we? --Qwerty0 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:RECENTISM is bad enough without us making a conscious effort towards it. Regardless, notability is achieved with multiple decently comprehensive sources, somewhat surprising for an internet add-on. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 04:24, 30 December 2011 (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.