This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep after move. – ABCD 22:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google Gulp

Note: as of 6 April 2005 this article has been refocused and moved to Google's hoaxes

Delete. Article was speedied, listed on VfU, re-created before VfU discussion was complete, marked for speedy, speedy tag deleted. Article is about Google's latest April Fool's prank, a fictitious soft drink. This topic has no potential to become encyclopedic. It was not even newsworthy. An online search of The New York Times shows 26 articles mentioning Google since March 1, 2005, including an April 2nd article mentioning its expansion of GMail's online storage to 2 gigabytes, but none mentioning the Google Gulp prank. Google News search for Google Gulp shows no coverage in the mainstream press. This was no major hoax like the Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast. It is basically a Google in-joke. It will be forgotten long before next April 1st. There's no way that this topic merits more than a brief mention in the article on Google, which has more than enough space for trivia of this kind. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • So, redirect to Google - I see there's already a mention if it there. It's clearly possible that someone could search for this. sjorford →•← 22:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep googlecruft "googlecruft" Kappa 23:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa, 'cruft' is an argument to delete, not keep. See Fancruft. --InShaneee 23:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with google. They're arguably the most notable site on the internet, and this may become a yearly thing. --InShaneee 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Although not traditionally encyclopedic this article does deserves a place in Wikipedia, because everything known about everything should be included in Wikipedia, even about expressions of humor such as this one. Think of it this way: Wouldn't you like to know what kind of pranks were played 50 or 100 years ago? That's exactly why to keep it. I started this article so that 100 years from now in 2105 people will know what humor was like in 2005. Plus it's a fun article!--Mb1000 23:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, sjorford, your argument that it was previously deleted has little relevance. It was recreated as a different article, which is not the same as undeletion. That is the reason it was not speedy-deleted again and that we are having this debate. Let's ignore the status quo and have a debate on the merits of the article. To me, it does have the possibility to become a much more detailed article, and I will work on it myself if I can. The Google News test is flawed, given that a search for Schiavo currently garners much more press than one for Pope, although the Pope was the one who was official leader of 1 billion Catholics, and most of Schiavo's supporters hadn't heard her name a year ago. Whether or not it has main-stream press is irrelevant to whether there can be an encyclopedia article about it. Sjford, if you believe someone would search for it, why would you vote redirect. I ask that you change your vote to keep. InShaneee, how does Google being notable show that this shouldn't be an article. Google's notability affects this hoax, especially given that it was on Google's front page, and after Google's IPO, which some feared would take away from Google's spirit. Just because this could be a yearly thing doesn't mean this can't be an article. We could link to each year's hoax. While saying everything should be in goes a bit far, this is significant enough for inclusion. Wikipedia is not paper, as they say. Superm401 23:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a larger article covering Google's pranks in general. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Google or to any new article on Google April Fools jokes. Dbiv 07:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusion. After all, would a major encyclopedia have articles on Menace Beach or Cheetahmen 2? Of course not, but because we have unlimited space, so long as an article is NPOV and non-vanity then it's welcome. If half the time some people spent trying to get good articles deleted was spent on writing articles here, think how much better Wikipedia would be. Zantastik 16:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, my reasoning is the same as Zantastik's. I would be fine with merging it into an article covering google's pranks or into the google article itself. - Jersyko 16:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus into a new Google hoaxes article. violet/riga (t) 18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • seconded! Refocus by itself this has no chance of becoming a long comprehensive article. Merging the various google april 1st pranks (Moon Base, Pigeonrank, Google gulp, etc..) would make 1 really good article that could perhaps someday be FA able.  ALKIVAR™ 20:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine with me. Although I don't see why we even need a separate Google hoaxes article, as there is currently plenty of space in the Google article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect with some merging either to Google or April Fools Day, which has a section on examples of similar pranks throughout the years. -R. fiend 20:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus as suggested by violetriga. — Dan | Talk 21:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is the best solution. Dave (talk) 06:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia is not paper and should not be constrained to paper's limitations. In addition, this is a well-written page which clearly explains the hoax. Andrew pmk 21:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A one day hoax does not a wikipedia article make. →Raul654 04:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A well-written article about an April Fools prank on a very notable website. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It was a web page that was up for one day. We don't want a Wikipedia article for every web page. - Nunh-huh 07:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Refocus. We have many articles on tiny events like controversies that won't necessarily be a big deal a year from now. I'm sure this article would get 1000s of more hits than half the articles on Wikipedia. We also have a lot of articles on things like this that don't exist (like products or cities in TV shows). Google is a huge part of our culture... It basically is a main "gateway to the internet." I think the content should be kept. Anyway, I'd say at a very minimum put it into article called "Google Hoaxes" or something, as putting this and all past/future pranks into the main Google article will make it too large. newkai 08:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Changed mind newkai 08:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Merge/refocus very good idea. Radiant_* 12:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Definate keep May not be average wiki article but is still a historic event, should not be deleted. --Electricmoose 18:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus to Google hoax article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We've got space for it. Matt Stan 00:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, its humorously noteworthy, but not worth deleting. —RaD Man (talk) 00:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article like this is blatant advertising. Wikipedia is NON-COMMERCIAL. 02:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • you do realize that is't selling a non-existent product, right? Dave (talk) 06:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • So because it's advertising a non-existant product, that makes it more notable? →Raul654 06:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • I was discussing whether or not it was "blatant advertising" violating Wikipedia's "NON-COMMERCIAL" stance, per the user above me. It looks to me like the vast majority here think it's notable enough for at least a section of an upcoming Google Hoaxes article.Dave (talk) 06:52, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia already contains articles about commercial products. How does one define what is blatant advertising and what is not? If I write an article about an e-commerce payment server developed by a commercial, privately-owned company, is it automatically blatant advertising? — JIP | Talk 08:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you don't realize it, but Google is a for-profit company, and if you put up an entire article on this stupid "Google Gulp" promotional technique, why not have a separate article about each advertisement on television? Even though it might seem "cute" for some, the only reason for the existence of this page is to show the advertising savvy of the Google company, which is not a purpose of Wikipedia. 17:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
            • Well then, Apple Computers is a for-profit company too, yet Wikipedia has an article for the iPod. Why is that not an advertisement and Google Gulp is? Is it because iPods exist and Google Gulp doesn't? If that's the criterion, then I would deduce that the payment server I mentioned above would be OK. All I'm asking for is a detailed explanation of which articles about commercial products by for-profit companies are advertising and which are not. — JIP | Talk 08:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This article's a Wikipedia first: it's on both VfD and Featured article candidates at the same time! (Refocus to Google hoaxes, by the way.) /sɪzlæk˺/ 08:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google's annual April Fool's gag tends to be both noteworthy and memorable (remember the pidgeon search technology one from a few years ago?) I would also consider a merge acceptable if we have an article on Google April Fool's jokes, but keep in mind that with a new one every year, said article is likely to outgrow itself and split fairly fast. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - to incorporate future Hoax's and past. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merging it in with other jokes would just make for a looong scroll that ought to be busted up into individual pages anyway. Point back to a main google joke or more generic joke page. --DÅ?ugosz
• Refocus into a Google hoaxes page. -℘yrop (talk) 20:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Refocus into a Google hoaxes page. I also concur on the Google's hoaxes idea, however, some of what were considered to be hoaxes, like their Infinity+1 storage, and their predictive searches (now known as Google Suggest), are coming into the realm of possibility. Sure, Infinity+1 may be "impossible" but they didn't say how soon it would come into place, and with their Gmail space counter rising like it does, it lends some potential to the idea of Infinity+1. So, certainly not FAC material, but possibly the content should be moved to a page summarizing Google Hoaxes, as there will likely be others in future. Will also post this to the VFD page. --Kyrin\^talk 21:29, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Keep --Bryce

• Refocus/Merge. This topic, while I think notable enuough to be included in Wikipedia, doesn't really deserve its own article. I agree with some of the earlier sugguestions of a 'Google Hoaxes.' I also thing merging it into the Google article itself isnt a bad alternative, but thats for another talk page. Acaides 01:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with a google hoaxes page as suggested above --nixie 01:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with a newly-created google hoax/joke page. This is at least the third annual google april fool's day hoax, and it seems as though it will continue, so I believe that these hoaxes deserve their own page. clarkefreak 01:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the refocussed article that lists all Google's April Fool's hoaxes. Mgm|^(talk) 19:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is extremely unfair. First of all, there was not a 5 day wait for votes as the VFD page recommends there should be before action is taken. Second of all, if you feel 4 days was enough, this page should have been deleted following the merge. Instead, you are using previous votes on a different issue to now attempt to delete the Google's hoaxes page as well. That is simply unfair. I will accept that the community consensus to merge into Google's hoaxes. However, you can not twist old votes into a new deletion of that page as well. I am deleting the VFD link to this page from Google's hoaxes. If someone still wants to put that up for deletion, they need to make a new nomination with a blank slate. Superm401 19:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned votes:

• Keep Somebody above contested newsworthiness of the item by saying that there were only 20 odd references to Google in the New York Times. But the New York Times is not necessarily the authoritative source of what should be called news and what otherwise. Besides, using an alternate medium to dictate what an encyclopedia should contain is itself contentious and should never be the right guideline to follow. The Wikipedia's motto is to welcome all manners of entries and additions by anybody, not just whatever is "important" or "newsworthy". That would be self-defeating and contrary to its philosophy. If some do believe that the entry should be merged with other April Fool's pranks pulled by Google, that is acceptable and perhaps advisable given what is now an annual occurrence of jokes foisted by Google.
• DELETE, by any and all means! Is Wikipedia going to start summarizing articles in The Onion? This is truly ridiculous, and a surreptitious ad for the web site Google.
• MERGE Merge into a jokes section of Google article, this is a useful piece of internet lore.
• Keep And move to a listing of Googles hoax's
• Keep It's an interesting piece of internet lore and therefore worthy of inclusion. The inclusion of ?novelty articles? in Wikipedia in no way disparages the validation of Wikipedia as a serious reference tool and source of useful information.
• Keep. Amoung other things, an encyclopedia is a record of events. This event occurred and is worthy of being recorded.
• Delete This is not an "event", it is a marketing campaign for a commercial company. If Wikipedia wants to keep any pretense of objectivity it should avoid becoming a dumping ground for marketing slogans. Otherwise expect "You deserve a break today" and "I'm lovin' it" articles. If people want a record of old or joke sites there is the Wayback machine.
  • Well, we do have an I'm lovin' it article (though I admit it should be deleted). But more reasonably, we have articles like McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans. So, especially in light of the fact that Google does this every year, I vote we refocus this into a general article on Google hoaxes. Tyler 23:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that this is a Gmail parody, somebody at somepoint in time may wish to look up the whole "Gmail phenominon" and while this is a parody it also may be useful in explaining it. Also the page is still up so it wasn't just a one day thing.Deathawk 01:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it simply gave no additional information that the parody did not, this would be an entirely useless article. What makes it interesting is how it exposes the non-obvious parodic aspects of the joke, linking it to real concerns that Google has as a business. I don't particularly expect it to enter the slang vocabulary, but really, where else but Wikipedia would some unenlightened person find this information? Deco 02:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would also support a merge into some article summarizing the Google April Fool's Day phenomenon, if one existed. Deco 02:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Google - this was a one-off joke CDC (talk) 02:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge* with Google --Arm
• Redirect to Google. —tregoweth 04:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, redirect, and refocus to an article on Google hoaxes, or merge and redirect to Google. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form as a redirect to Google's hoaxes. --Deathphoenix 21:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.