Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stackdriver

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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stackdriver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Very promotional article. Unsure of notability, the vast majority of hits are of the routine type. If kept will have to be virtually entirely re-written. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It meets WP:GNG: [1] [2] [3]. A rewrite would be in order, as per my the last link the company was acquired by Google years ago. Daß Wölf 02:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first source says that they are assembling a team, the second is that there is public beta, and the third is that they were bought by Google.  This is not WP:SUSTAINED coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  Fails WP:SUSTAINED, the uncited names of BLP is an extra concern, and there doesn't seem to currently be a suitable redirect target.  Since Google is still creating this product, notability can be expected to increase over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In my view the coverage is sustained, and it meets the bare minimum level of notability required. Given the nature of the product, the fact that it has been acquired, etc., I don't think the tone of the article is a big deal.--greenrd (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a weakly sourced WP:PROMO page often parroting what the company personnel were telling the tech press. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (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.