Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Browser Sync

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The result was keep per combination of inclement weather and withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Browser Sync

Article about a discontinued Firefox extension that makes no claim of notability and is unsourced. (prod was removed)--Jmundo (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable Firefox extension. There are a couple of sources, but nothing to prove notability. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: per Icewedge. Schuym1 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

It makes no difference that the extension was discontinued - Per WP:NOTE, notability is not temporary.
The article is unsourced, but myriad WP:RS are available for the topic.
The lack of an assertion of notability, given the availability of sources that are so plainly tied to the topic, is grounds for a cleanup request, not deletion.

MrZaius^talk 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources are blogs and "how to install" instructions. Blogs and discussion boards are not WP:reliable. --Jmundo (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several sources,

Blackwell, Laura (August 1, 2006). "Download This: Sync Firefox Bookmarks, Build Personal Podcasts". PC World.
Perez, Juan (June 08, 2006). "Google Develops Browser Sync Tool for Firefox". Computer World.
Vaughan-Nichols, Steven (June 9, 2006). "First Impressions of Google Browser Sync". eWEEK.

And the article is in pretty good shape. Icewedge (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provides are blogs. If we have to resort to blogs to establish "notability," then there probably isn't any.--Jmundo (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are articles hosted on reputable websites written by staff writers, they are reliable sources, whether or not they are denoted as 'blogs' is irrelevant. While this is not a BLP, WP:BLP says that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs" and that these are reliable sources as long as "the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", qualifications which all of the articles I cited meet. Icewedge (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, blogs are not a reliable sources. A blog or "interactive column" is "usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary". From WP:RELY: "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact". --Jmundo (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that staff writers from major technology news sources are reliable. They are going to be reliable whether or not the boss man has told the journalist to write a traditional news article or assigned the writer to create a 'blog' to exploit the power of web 2.0. Also, what are book reviews if not opinion and yet we allow them in articles all the time. Icewedge (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are acceptable sources in some cases. See WP:SELFPUB: the requirement is that the blog is written by an expert in the subject who has been published in a reliable source. Which the blog in question was. Note that the 2nd and 3rd articles are _not_ blogs.

Besides, all we need to cite from these articles is their author's opinion: the fact that authors for these notable publications felt that this was important software makes it notable. The relevant facts can be sourced from google's pages. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything up on google Labs is probably notable--certainly so if it's there for two years, and pcworld and computerworld and eWeek are RSs. DGG (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Icewedge. JulesH (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I withdraw the nomination to delete, sources seem to establish notability. I think that the policies about the use of blogs to establish notability are due for a makeover, but this is not the place to discuss that.--Jmundo (talk) 06:04, 20 December 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.