Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google TechTalks

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. --jonny-mt 06:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google TechTalks

Google TechTalks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

How can this possibly be encyclopedic? Google invites speakers to talk at Google headquarters, places videos of talks on their websites and suddenly we have an encyclopedia article on the subject. Almost every company invites people to give talks; I think we would be hard-pressed to say simply because a company has invited talks that makes these invited talks noteworthy or notable.

I believe that this particular article is not worthy of separation from the main Google article and therefore I suggest either a merge back to that article or an outright deletion on the grounds that the only sources that mention these talks are obviously taken from either people attempting to promote themselves for having given the talk or are a blatant advertisement for Google's TechTalks. The two "independent" sources on this do not establish notability for these talks outside of the Google-empire. We should not be making spin-offs for every marginal project that Google creates. If these talks become famous like the Ford Lectures then we should have an article. Until then, this should not be an article on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have followed the discussion of the article, and several proponents of the article are interested in the notability of a particular talk given. This talk is often cited and commented on by the marketing director of the company that provided the talk, and the company's web site and the talk itself are concerned with the loss of funding from the government, raising funding from the public, and marketing the placement of the company's products in neighborhoods without also citing any studies about city-licensing and neighbourhood acceptance of this type of product in residential neigbourhoods, the point being that it presents a sophistic argument for the marketing of the product and the search for investment capital. Similarly, in the case of GPL products like "git", the page is attaching a commercial entity's name (Google -- as great as they are) to a GPL entity. It should likely be the other way around (on a "git" page, for example). Jok2000 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Topics are not required to be famous - merely verifiable, unoriginal and neutral. The article seems fine on all three counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.200.194 (talk • contribs)

• Keep The quality and the notability of the speakers in the technology community can't get much better. To discount them on the grounds that they are self-promotion or advertisement seems more WP:IDONTLIKEIT because google is "big and scary" as a for-profit company. Alas, it's an emotional argument that i have often seen used against Microsoft and now i'm starting to see it applied to google. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge elsewhere into the Google empire. probably Googleplex. Not independently notable, but deletion is not at all appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While the above 2 keeps did not comment on the possibility of the page currently being used as an marketing and advertising vehicle, perhaps a merge to a higher profile page will keep it from being hijacked for these non-wikipedia purposes, and then I can take it off my watch-list, but deletion also works in that regard, but I'd be selfish to make that suggestion myself, however, I am open to the argument that most tech talks are marketing vehicles. Jok2000 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment These comments about being hijacked seem like scare tactics, to me. Whatever contributions might be inappropriate can and will be removed by editors. Wikipedia is a very open system that doesn't need the heavy-handed approach perhaps necessary in more closed systems like a traditional management heiarchy (business, school, etc.). And what are these complaints about boogy-man Marketing vehicles? Seems like a blunt instrutment of an idea being brandished about without the appropriate amount of thought. Any and all contributions (books, papers, even classes) by any professor (math, physics, science) at any university (MIT, Stanford, Georgia Tech) are "Marketing vehicles" for those universities and if they aren't successful in attracting funding, students, and prestige then that professor isn't going to last too long at the university. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Poetry. Jok2000 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The one independent source (no longer in the article), the New Scientist article, only has one paragraph about the subject. The Infoworld source is a press release. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While I certainly agree that more independent sources are desirable, I think you're overstating the problem. I don't know about Infoworld coverage, there's never been such a link in the article, but there has long been one to an InformationWeek article [1] which is completely different in style and content to the Google press release [2]. While the New Scientist article only has one mention of the topic as you say (one sentence, in fact), it's relevant and should not have been removed from the article IMO. There are two other independent sources mentioned on the talk page; I haven't copied them to the article because I'm unsure of their citeability, but one of them does have a Wikipedia page of its own. Andrewa (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, most anything associated with Google tends to be notable. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, and see whether the stub will grow. It's a surprisingly difficult subject to research online, the problem is in devising a meaningful search... suggestions welcome on the talk page. This makes the article, if it ever grows into a proper one, all the more valuable. This nomination appears to be just another blow in the war to remove Eric Lerner from Wikipedia. The problem is that Lerner gave one of these talks, and having failed in various attempts to remove this information from the article, his critics are now trying various tactics of which this is just one to discredit and/or remove the entire article. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"war"? And people accuse me of skating figuratively on thin metaphors. I read his book. It was okay. Adding references to a page full of talks is rather difficult, as there are no transcripts to text search. Trying to argue about the notability of the "talks" page here would require us all to have our eyelids pried open, while chained to a chair, watching youtube videos with Beethoven's ninth playing in the background. The onus is on those who want to keep in this case, because the references are in the wrong source format, and are marketing, until proven otherwise. Bon chance. Jok2000 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's a stub. Give Wikiman a chance to fix it. I'm often astounded at what results. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... call it what you will, but it's difficult when the proposer of this AfD continues to remove content from the article while the AfD is in progress, don't you think? Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, this wasn't the finest moment in the history of Wikipedia edits nor is this AfD for that matter. My usual experience with ScienceApologist is that this fellow is a reasonable person who has admirably strong morals. So this AfD is confusing to me, but it's not scary or frightening the way many are. For with many (perhaps most) AfD's good faith is wasted, but I don't feel this to be the case with ScienceApologist. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No argument with reasonableness and morals; Those are not the issues here. But perhaps, if you find this behaviour surprising, you should do some rethinking. I'm afraid it's 100% consistent to the unfortunate pattern I've observed. Andrewa (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's reasonableness and possesion of morals points towards the ideal of WP:GOODFAITH are far more important than whatever mistakes are being made (or from my perspective, the SINS committed). And as a devout Christian, I so far feel comfortable around ScienceApologist since this editor has only acted towards me in ways that ultimately demonstrate good faith. And this is not so easy, considering the apparently vast differences in our world-views, values, and beliefs. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you feel comfortable around ScienceApologist and wish your ministry to him well. And of course all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But we're not (re)trying him here, we're simply trying to deal with an AfD which he has raised and then attempted to disrupt. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason this is not closed? I don't want to do it myself, but the chance of even rough consensus to delete appears minimal, the arguments for deletion equally minimal, and the normal time has expired. Can we move on?

In fact ISTM that we have rough consensus to keep. It would be most helpful to close it as consensus to keep, to minimise the risk that it will be quickly renominated. But even a close as no consensus would be progress IMO. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not to keep. It looks like the best we can say is that there is no consensus. In particular, Arthur, myself, and Jok2000 have given arguments as to why this article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. You, Stifle, and Firefly have expressed the opposite opinion. Then there is the fly-by-night anon, but I hope we can agree to discount that. In any case, a consensus to keep is hardly appropriate. I don't see any harm in relisting the nom to get further input. That's normally what is done when things are as split as this. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "no consensus" evaluation. It wouldn't hurt to relist it to get more opinions, and possibly some editors to contribute to the article to improve it. I'm abstaining from the vote, but I do think the additional references that were added have helped with the original notability issues. ABlake (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not to keep... Um, there's certainly no consensus to delete. I guess you're saying there's no consensus as yet? Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Up until now, I had just commented. We can't discuss this forever. I object a bit to Google's over-selling of some of the talks. I am a software engineer and this idea of "debugging backwards in time" is obviously marketing speak aimed at geeky sci-fi fans, such as myself. They are simply referring to an instruction back-trace, which is a hardware trace-log idea that has been in use in in-circuit-emulators (that in fact I have used) since all the way back to the early 1980's and before. Half the talks come off as marketing hype. Like take that Bussard, his $1meg machine blew up. "oooh coool" -- so what, all it means is that his machine does not work. Too much hype in all of the talks. They are after all "talks" in the sense of "talking". I might actually like the ones about software, but I do recognize that I am being sold-to. Wikipedia is not a marketing forum, I can't give investor advice here, and I don't want to. e.g. Am I to go to the talks page and say "By the way, the instruction back-trace has been around forever"? Jok2000 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether individual talks have contained marketing speak is not the issue. The question is simply, is this topic encyclopedic? Anyway, this vote probably pushes the discussion over the borderline from rough consensus to no consensus. Is consensus likely to be achieved? If not, we should close the discussion and move on, as I think Jok2000 is suggesting as well. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If the talks are all simply marketing talks (and I maintain that they are), how can it possibly be encyclopedic? Do we cover the marketing expos put on by any other company? Should the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) Information Systems & Logistics Distribution Conference have an article? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The talks are all simply marketing talks? What a ridiculous assertion, but it explains a lot.

Have a look at the list of speakers. Do you really think that these people all agreed, under the banner of TechTalks, to give instead a marketing talk? Have you listened to any of them? Which ones?

Have a look at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742374580386548257, one of the talks listed in the article (you removed the list, but it was restored). The abstract reads Andrew will present a broad look at the trends in recent changes in the Linux kernel: what areas of kernel functionality are people working on, and what changes can we expect to see over the next year ? This feature-by-feature walk-through will be tied to an examination of the motivations of the kernel contributors: why do particular individuals and organizations choose particular things to work upon ? He will also examine areas of the kernel which are arguably suffering from some neglect, the reasons for this and some possible corrective actions which might be taken. Andrew will finish with a discussion of the importance of individual testers to the kernel development effort, as well as a look at the steps which a kernel tester should take to maximize the effectiveness of his or her contribution to the kernel.

Come now. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Come now indeed. Andrew Morton is a Linux developer. As much as I love Linux, he's still basically giving a product demonstration. That's marketing plain and simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm? So any presentation by a Linux developer on the subject of Linux is marketing plain and simple, is that your claim?

I guess then you would then also include the preso by Linus Torvalds (who unlike Morton doesn't work for Google) as marketing? I'm getting quite curious.

I'm guessing that there's a world of difference between these talks and the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) Information Systems & Logistics Distribution Conference to which you refer above. But I could be wrong. Tell me more about these. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course Linus Torvalds did a marketing demonstration. He was promoting the version-control software that he developed. I don't think that there is a world of difference in terms of the purpose or function of the talks. The GMA talks are usually given by various CEOs of successful product distribution companies like ConAgra, Gillette, and CVS who explain how to handle product flow. Those marketing talks are done to "introduce" vendors, purchasers, and suppliers to particular distribution models in hopes of selling franchises, products, wholesale agreements etc. In the business world, it's called "synergistic networking" and even though attendees are enthusiastic about the "exchange of ideas" they are essentially giant sales expos. I see the GoogleTechTalks as exactly the same, just for the Tech sector. Certainly not encyclopedic, in my opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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.