Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Google test

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Joyous 19:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Google test[edit]

It would appear that the so-called "Google test" is a complete fallacy. How is any of this material useful or relevant to current practice? Why should this document be kept and how does it benefit the participants of VfD? --GRider\talk 20:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP. We use the Google test on VFD all the time. ral315 20:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • For what purpose? --GRider\talk 21:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The Google test works but it's flawed particularly when it comes to pop music and entertainment in general where the results are skewed by fan pages, mirrors and download sites. Megan1967 23:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and censor GRider for wasting our time with what is now an admitted large-scale disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. —Korath (Talk) 21:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • ... although, given that (even before GRider changed it) Wikipedia:Google test clearly stated that the Google tests were biased and that their results should be scrutinised in the contexts of how Google works and what is published on the World Wide Web and on Usenet, I'm not too sure what that point actually was, other than perhaps "This article is valuable, R. fiend's points on Wikipedia talk:Google test are probably worth incorporating into it, and GRider's own use of Google in VFD illustrates quite nicely what this article warns about and thus contradicts xyr own nomination for it to be deleted.".
      Little tally boxes. Nominations for deletion of articles warning about the biases of the Google tests. What disruption is coming next? I advise those who haven't to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson at this juncture, by the way. Uncle G 12:13, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  • Obviously a strong keep, and I do join Korath in his comment. I have seen a number of odd VfDs from GRider that are usually accompanied by completely unnecessary prompts to establish a concensus on previously decided upon issues. Korath, where can the evidence of the "admitted large-scale disruption" can be found? RidG (talk) 21:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Surely you must be joking. Just because you happen to dislike the google test doesn't make it invalid. This nomination was made to prove a point, so was therefore made in bad faith. Censure nominator. DaveTheRed 21:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can provide conclusive evidence that this test is used without bias I will respectfully withdraw my nomination. As always, please refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks. --GRider\talk
      • There is a huge difference between saying that something is sometimes biased, and saying that it is worthless and should be outright deleted. And how is anything I've said either unsubstantiated or a personal attack? DaveTheRed 21:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Clearly we disagree (on all points), and you are entitled to your own opinion. To claim I am nominating this or any other article in "bad faith" is a blatant personal attack; sorry you don't understand this. --GRider\talk 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Stating that the nomination was made in bad faith is not a personal attack. I am simply stating the percieved motives of the nomination. I've said nothing against you personally. Besides, you've been around VfD long enough to know that it is bad form to nominate something for deletion to make a point. DaveTheRed 23:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Even if the Google test article were a valid article on a valid test it would not apply to the Google test because the Google test article is within the Wikipedia namespace. That said, this is not a bad faith nomination and I resent the baseless accusation. --GRider\talk 23:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, 592 hits for wikipedia + "google test" Kappa 22:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, only 592 hits on google? Hardly notable. —ævarab 23:52, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article explains the degree of reliability (or the lack thereof) that we can expect from the so-called "Google test". The fact that people misuse this is not cause to delete it. (People also misuse references to quantum mechanics, which is generally much trickier to apply appropriately.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Have you read the text? Where in the referred to documentation does it state how to apply any sort of test evenly and appropriately? Please discuss. --GRider\talk 00:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • There are five headings. The last two are entitled "Google bias" and "Validity of the Google test". Anyone who reads that page and doesn't realize that Google may not give unambiguous or 100% valid results is probably hopeless. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's in Wikipedia namespace, not article space. The fact that the Google test may sometimes be used with bias isn't the fault of the test; it's the fault of the people who apply it that way. There's no valid reason to delete this. Keep. Bearcat 00:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, subtrivial deletioncruft. --iMb~Mw 00:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No case to answer, patently absurd request given the number of Google tests on VFD right now. - RedWordSmith 00:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Improve as needed. Google is a very good way to check for the existence of something. Despite occasionally expressed opinions to the contrary, so far I have not been able to find anything that I can verify as existing that doesn't at least show up in Google. You may not be able to find out anything useful, but someone, somewhere, will have mentioned it. 8 billion pages is a lot more than is indexed in any print encyclopedia, or the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, or what have you. Google has obvious problems when used to evaluate the notability of unlike things (pop music stars versus classical composers). Google web searches have obvious problems because anyone can create a web page and Google will usually index it, and because there are well-known techniques for increasing Google ranking. This is much less of a problem with Google Groups. This is still subject to the problem that anyone can create content that Google will index, but relatively few people bother to do this. There is much less commercial push going on in Google Groups. Finally, Google News is only useful for recent material but it, too, casts a very wide net, and unlike other Google searches, the content that is indexed is not under the direct control of a would-be self-publicizers. Wikipedia:Google test useful in describing practices that Wikipedians use. It can be tweaked and NPOVed by consensus, like any other page. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Google is way helpful, it's up to the user to apply it intelligently, this should never have been VfD'd. Wyss 01:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn googlecruft. ComCat 02:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I only came across this because I was trying to figure out if there's some sort of standardized target for the Google Test... Does it count as notable at 1000 hits? 3000? 20000? I'm simply confused as to what's considered to be the norm for calculating the Google test... and this seems as good a place to ask as any. Wakuseino 02:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no standardized rules because the same guidelines won't work in every case. Google is primarily useful for a first approximation, except in certain specialized circumstances (such as, say, self-proclaimed "Internet phenomena"). -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd be making a clever comment and saying Delete, but I'm not clever tonight. :( Mo0[talk] 03:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. People don't kill people, googles kill people. —RaD Man (talk) 04:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If necessary, clarify that Google scores should be evaluated with topic and time frame in mind (events that occurred before the widespread usage of the Internet will have fewer webpages that those that occurred in the Internet era). However, the page should be kept and clarified if necessary, not deleted.
  • Keep. WP:POINT. -Sean Curtin 06:15, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is but 1 tool to use during the VfD process, if this is ALL your using for proving "notability" you need to get beaten upside the head with a clue by 4.  ALKIVAR™ 08:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- what Alkivar and Wyss said. Tygar 09:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • What the... Keep. Also, what is that random selection of WP articles that were kept in spite of low google scores doing there? Radiant! 18:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Google testing is best done in comparison... when googling a band, google some other bands and see if the band you're looking for gets significantly more or less hits. For instance, a kilogoogle (i.e. 1024 hits) would be far below the bar for a 'web phenomenon' but would be quite a lot for a Spanish writer. Radiant! 18:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. More of a collection of "best practices", much like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases. cesarb 00:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that it is a good piece of information to ensure that Google isn't relied on too heavily in certain cases. --Colin Angus Mackay 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT - David Gerard 15:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's true that the Google test has its drawbacks, but it's also a very useful and notable tool. Carbonite | Talk 15:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, however this is the biggest contradiction I've seen. An article Vfd'd on the Google Test, by the person who uses it religiously. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The Google Test is misused and abused almost every time that it is used in a Wikipedia discussion and should be abandoned. BlankVerse ∅ 08:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:09 Z
  • Keep. I agree with BlankVerse about the frequent misuse of the Google test; given how frequently it is harmful and how rarely it is useful, the Google test should probably be abandoned in RFDs. However, the Wikipedia article on the Google test should remain; having an article on a topic does not inherently endorse the topic.
    • (*&#$. Above vote is from me. I forgot to sign my vote, yet again. Sorry. --Jacobw 18:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This seems like a totally valid article on a common Wikipedia phenomenon. There's obviously a lot of controversy surrounding the method, but that doesn't give its detractors the right to deny its existence. They should simply add a section on flaws, criticisms, etc. (and I believe such a section already exists). In any case, even if the google test method is totally discredited, this page should remain for historical purposes. If we delete it, we would also have to delete the articles on WikiMoney, etc. Binadot 19:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Dispite the fact that using search engines to determine whether perfectly okay articles (as in not hoaxes or neogilisms) can be VfD'ed JUST because they don't have a high hit count. To keep this article there must be a warning sign telling users that using Google to prove articles are wrong because of their hit count is low and that using google isn't alway justified for deleting topics.

Louisisthebest_007 20:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. If there is a problem with the "test"... {{sofixit}}. Deleting it doesn't solve any problems. Also, this "test" is a good measure for anything heavily Internet related. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Very few people go to the trouble of Google bombing unless they stand to make money from it. Alphax τεχ 23:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Google test is great for checking new pages - you can check whether the subject matter exists or not. You can also catch many copyvios by the means of a Google test. Yes, Google test can be misused and should not be the sole reason to base decisions on, but it needs to stay. Solver 00:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As contentious and crappy as the Google Test is, this isn't the place to do something about it. Kinitawowi 12:30, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment And the article is the best place for provisos, caveats, cautions, etc. Deleting the article makes no sense unless you also want to decree that Wikipedians are prohibited from mentioning Google hit counts in VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, delete the nominator --Carnildo 21:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A google test might not be legally binding, but its a good litnus test --Uncle Bungle 00:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a real phenomenon, and is used. Perhaps it should be an article as well... -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:16, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Keep and ban GRider for continually trolling VFD. — Dan | Talk 01:29, 19 Mar 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Google_test&oldid=1144853847"