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 delete as an apparently indiscriminate list. If anyone wants the content for use in another article, just let me know and I'll be happy to userfy it. --jonny-mt 06:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google Street View locations[edit]

List of Google Street View locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

With all the new Street View locations Google has released today, it became clear that nearly everywhere in the United States would be covered by Street View in a few months, therefore making this list totally useless. Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak ^TALK 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There has already been a thorough discussion of this at a previous AfD (no consensus). However, I feel this article should be deleted. The relevant info is listed at Google Street View. This article should be a section within that article. TN‑X-Man 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I now support merging

• Delete This will eventually become "list of every city in the United States". And it looks like Google wants to cover the entire world too. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google has not seen fit to give my area a good satellite map, but they have Street View activated for rural intersections with a single farmhouse otherwise surrounded by cornfields. This is no longer a list with even the slightest encyclopedic purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or rename to List of locations --T-rex 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm satisfied with Google Street View#Evolution and in the long run could even see trimming that list down when Google changes the Street View tag line to "billions and billions served..." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but simplify Merge to Google Street View to preserve archive: Rather than making this an entire directory, limit this list to incorporated cities, county seats, national and state parks, and other locations with some type of importance.Sebwite (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Incorporated cities in Minnesota means that the list will include 22 "cities" around Minneapolis and Saint Paul, of which the suburban population count rivals major midwestern cities. And see Bay Area. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:If the decision is to delete, the article should simply be merged into Google Street View so if need be, it can be pulled back out. Besides, this would allow people to view the archive in the event that one wishes to see the evolution. Sebwite (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - It's a ridiculous list with no guidelines by which to limit anything by. The differences of definitions of cities between states makes any task to list locations simply irrelevant to WP. I would rather simply say which States contain SV streets. I do not support merge. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but simplify. List relating to a notable innovation on the Internet which, in turn, has received considerable media coverage both pro and con. I agree it's a little too detailed and should be restricted to major incorporated places. It may be necessary to revisit this, however, if an when Google Streetview becomes ubiquitous and such a list becomes unmanageable. But at the moment that hasn't happened yet. 23skidoo (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please define a "major" incorporated place. For example San Francisco may be the most well known city, but the Bay Area population far exceeds that and no one in Oakland is going to let you tell them they are part of San Francisco SV. If Consensus reaches we simplify then I suggest we use metropolitan areas or metropolitan statistical areas as the definition of simplicity than any one city or place. .:DavuMaya:. 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a good form of simplification would be to have one listing for each region covered by an icon (or not covered by one, since there are many areas now not clearly marked by an icon). For example, in Kentucky, Louisville, which has an icon, would be one area, and Lexington, which has no icon, would be another. But we would not go crazy here listing every little suburb. Still, this list is valuable for now in that it prevents the main GSV article from being unmanageable. Also, when this article is no longer needed, the appropriate action would be to merge or rename it, not to delete it, since it has an archive. Deletion is the course of action to take only when an article is not suitable for Wikipedia to begin with. Notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. Sebwite (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the article was when it was first created. Its basically in the same format as it now and you can make the same case to delete it.--Coasttocoast (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was only the first version. From this, the article was worked on to be a more manageable format. There is still plenty of more room for working on it. Sebwite (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's going to be nearly impossible to list every single Street View location. And, above all, it is unencyclopedic. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Comment: I am presently working on trimming down the list. The types of places I am including are:
  • Cities that are labeled in print that is the same size as the main city
  • Cities that are in isolated areas covered in blue
  • National and some state parks
  • Note that not all areas have their own icons now. Though all these places are supposedly associated with a particular icon, it is not always clear which one, so it is best with certain places (such as Bakersfield) to label these as "no icon." Also, some places could like Omaha-Lincoln or Carson City-Reno theoretically could have their own icons, so these places could also be labeled "no icon."

What are we going to do when Google gets most of the United States on Street View? Are we going to rename this List of American locations? That's just plain crazy. If this article is kept, why not start List of hi-res Google Earth locations? --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Delete this, and include a very small list on Google Street View. If you want to list every single location, feel free to do so on your own website/blog. --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While I can see the "plight" of this "eventually" becoming obsolete because most of the U.S. is covered, I give you this section of the map with Google Map coverage on it: NorthEast U.S. Google Street View. Granted, population wise, with N.Y., Philly, Chicago, Boston, etc. street viewed, that a good portion is covered. If you are looking geographically though, just eye-balling it, I would guesstimate that at most 15% of the map is streetviewed. And there are many major mid-sized (and bigger) cities still not streetviewed. Yes, once every city over 50,000 in the U.S. is streetviewed, this is an obsolete list. At this point though, that list would in my guess be under 20% of those cities in the U.S. would be there. As others have pointed out though, if we don't want "lists" on Wikipedia, then, so be it. Just making a point about some of the arguments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Currently, streetview only covers the US, but pretty soon as we all hear, it'll be in other places in the world, thereby necessitating more information to be written as to what places have it and what places not. Deleting this article would not make it go away permanently - it would only kill the archive, which would be a tremendous shame. Inevitably, someone would recreate a page like this, either under this name or something else. Anyone who feels it is not needed should at the very least have the consideration to merge it. Sebwite (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Consideration means to give something careful thought. Why should we even include this in an encyclopedia? The most that would be reasonable is a map of the current Street View locations (which I can provide), but listing every single city covered is pretty useless. You could say in the Google logo article that "the letters in Google's logo are coloured in the following order: G, blue; o, red; second o, yellow...etc.", or you just include a picture of the logo so the user could see for herself/himself. --FlagFreak ^TALK 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just one question, Sebwite: Why do you want to list them in the first place? --FlagFreak ^TALK 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about making a flat-out list. This is about describing the history and evolution of this service, which has excited many. Contrary to what you may think, I do not support a list of 100% of the locations on Wikipedia, but rather one that is limited to relatively large or otherwise significant or distinct cities or areas. While defining exactly what could fit such a requirement is not easy, it is pretty clear that we would want to list Omaha or Knoxville, which do not have their own icons, but are recognized as big cities with identities separate from other nearby cities. But I do not see much of a need to list places like Newton, MA or Skokie, IL, which are very much like suburbs of the main cities.

At the present, I am leaning toward the best thing to be to merge this article back into GSV. This way, the archive would be preserved. Meanwhile, I am working on converting the list on this page into a simplified chart, which I am planning on doing on my userspace until it is complete.

Meanwhile, it is only a matter of time before SV is introduced in other countries. When this happens, it would probably be a good idea to split the section of the GSV article called "Areas included" into a separate article. That could be titled "Google Street View areas in the United States" or something similar. This section (which I am still working on updating), is not a list, but rather a description of how the service has grown over time. As SV is growing, this is the type of information that will not grow useless, but would tell of the service's development.Sebwite (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeing with whoever cited WP NOT DIRECTORY. This is exactly the kind of list that policy was intended to target. GSV list is like "List of McDonalds restaurant locations", "List of corporations using Microsoft Vista", "List of cities with skyscrapers." GSV is a service intended for the public, for the nation, and nowhere does Google state it is simply hitting a few specific spots and then calling it quits. The list by virtue will become obsolete and even at this time will not seem very relevant. I interpret you are advocating the list will give us some kind of historical picture of how the service came into being. Let me suggest a compromise to that, you want to write a History section for GSV detailing how it came into being. Sure GSV had a few significant steps when it tested new imaging technologies at different cities or encountered some unique situations. But after that, SVing places is what the service is intended to do, and so you cannot state for WP:Crystal ball certainty that this list is somehow notable to that effect. Your text may be, the list is not. .:DavuMaya:. 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am presently working on in my own userspace is a simple chart that I am planning eventually to add to the main GSV article. It'll not be a directory, but rather give a picture of coverage areas. Meanwhile, I am advocating merging this article. In the future, when locations in other countries are included, so the GSV article does not become USA-centric, it'll become necessary to split that article, so another subarticle will have to be created describing the USA locations (but it'll be different from this one, which should be merged, and will have a different title). The reasons why I advocate merging as opposed to straight-out deleting are that articles do not stop being notable, and it is important to preserve this archive to show editors in the future the proper route to take. Sebwite (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to preserve the content in your own namespace OR propose an additional namespace off of the main GSV article such as Google Street View/drafts .:DavuMaya:. 01:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Re-charter - I’m doing a second pitch to delete this article as the entire list is original research from primary sources. It seems people notice blue lines and some point deem coverage of an area or city is “sufficient” to merit addition to the GVS list article. The article's references at this moment are a blog entry that part of Canada is visible from a GVS taken in Detroit and a news article about a GVS competitor. The body of the article has zero references/citations. The current process and resulting article/list smacks of WP:OR. Rather than deleting the article it could be updated to use http://maps.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=68384 as the source and nothing more as that seems to qualify as a reliable secondary source. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated List of Google Street View locations#Summary Table so that it matches Google's reference document on which cities/areas they cover with GVS though reorganized the list by state. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recharter was my idea, too. I am working on a chart similar to yours on my userspace that is a little more detailed, but for the most part, has a single line for each of the 50 states. It'll only list those places that have icons, isolated areas of blue, or other areas of importance that are separate from the icon. For the most part, I am not using Google to determine what places I feel are worthy of belonging in that chart, but rather the Rand McNally Road Atlas. When the chart is complete, I am planning on placing in the the Google Street View article under the "areas included" section. But when SV is introduced into other countries, I am planning on moving that section into a new article called "Google Street View in the United States," so the main article is not USA-centric. In the mean time, I am hoping, this discussion will lead to a decision to merge or a non-concensus so the archive can be preserved and we can all decide what to do next. Sebwite (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so why don't we make an article called Google Earth in the United States? Because it's crazy. Also, we thank you for all the work you've done on this list, and it's a great effort, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you would like, put it on your userspace before it's too late and then we'll decide what to do with it. Okay? ;-) --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not delete the entire page/article as that would then be used as justification for never being able to recreate this list. I would like to see the body of the article deleted as it seems there's no defined criteria for what gets included and that's what's triggering nearly all of the Delete comments in this AfD discussion. The summary table at the top of the article is based on two defined, and verifiable, criteria for what that table includes. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marc Kupper about not deleting the entire page. I also have the issue about losing the archive, as I have mentioned before. But I do agree that having a list, straight down the page, of hundreds of cities and towns, won't go as it just keeps growing. What this is really all about is that it is time for a change. Google Street View is changing rapidly, hence the need for Wikipedia info on the topic to change constantly to keep up with it.

On the Google Street View page, I have inserted a new chart I made in the past day that has a simple, state-by-state list of cities covered. The list is not based on Google Maps, which is highly detailed and can lead to an overwhelming list, but rather on the USA page of the Rand McNally Road Atlas. In more than 90% of cases, it lists SVed locations that are shown on this map of the RMRA. I made a few exceptions, based on common sense. For example, I added in Modesto and Stockton, which are really cities of their own, and left out three places near Chicago shown that map that are more like suburbs.

I am also planning as my next step to reinstate a state-by-state set of paragraphs on the areas included into the GSV article that the nom here has removed twice in the past few days. I plan to leave a discussion of the GSV talk page about it. While I will put it back there for now, a solution may be to place it on a separate page. I have not created a page on "GSV in the USA" for now because it seems silly when the United States is still the only country, but this may be a step in that direction. Sebwite (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2008 (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.