Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google monopoly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 essay. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google monopoly

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

Unsalvageable essay. Those sources that aren't blogs or opinion articles state either that it is not a monopoly, that competitors 'may' accuse it of monopolistic practices- or have nothing at all to say on the matter. John Nevard (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A few sentences could possibly be written from some of the sources in the Criticism of Google article. John Nevard (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to Criticisms of Google. Per nom, the article appears to take for granted that Google is a monopolist without providing adequate references for this bald assumption. (Those references which are there either fail to support or explicitly contradict this conclusion.) The entire subject of the article is thus irredeemably non-NPOV. I suggest that what salvageable and reasonably well-referenced content should be merged into Criticisms of Google as a new section. silly rabbit (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as essay or content- or maybe even POV-fork of some other Google article. If none of the sources support the claims they are claimed to support, then it's indeed hopeless personal ramblings and should be deleted. If there is any salvaveable content, merge it into the existing Criticism of Google article, since this topic is just one more example of that, and even as written and assuming it were all completely citable, seems WP:UNDO on one criticism aspect. Given that WP seems to frown on "Criticism of..." sections in articles themselves (vs actually writing coherent/unified content), not sure a "Criticism of..." article is better, so "One specific criticism of..." is surely going the wrong way. DMacks (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears to be an essay in order to combat Google, and that is not what WP is supposed to do.--Berig (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV essay. Nothing much else to be said. Possibly redirect to Criticisms of Google. EJF (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an essay. Some of the points made might possibly be salvagable with sources in the main Google article or a related article, but on it's own, it's just an essay. 23skidoo (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong merge with Google. This should stay, but it needs to be integrated with an existing article. In particular, we could have an Economics of Google page which describes the monopoly characteristics. Alternatively, this could go under Monopoly somewhere. Regardless, it is a decent essay, and Google is clearly emerging as a monopoly in internet information services. OptimistBen (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources in the article to support the title, namely that Google has a search engine monopoly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any legitimate claims of monopoly (and I didn't see any referenced in this article) can be added to Criticism of Google. Klausness (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an essay, simple as that and has no purpose here. Anything relevant, if anything can be integrated into the Criticism article. Xtreme racer (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be an essay. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 19 April 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.