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 WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyWarrior ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Google memo

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

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

Non-encyclopedic. No any perceived lasting effects in culture, politics, or google itself. A clean-cut case of political WP:RECENTISM. Multiple sources do exist, but that's all just a scandal around a nonnotable person's musings. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Google#Criticism_and_controversy or better yet Google#Corporate_affairs_and_culture. In fact, that second one is EXACTLY where this belongs. It's gotten enough attention in reliable sources to be worthy of discussing somewhere, but it's nowhere near notable enough for a stand alone article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge Volunteer Marek is right. That is because Volunteer Marek is right. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 23:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nominator and Volunteer Merek. There is coverage in RS, and this could turn out to be of lasting significance, but it's way too early to make that assumption. Grayfell ( talk) 00:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: this controversy is expanding more and more and I think before rushing to nominate this for deletion, we should leave it for at least a week to see how far it goes. In case it dies out qickly, merge and redirect to the appropriate section in Google. In case it has lasting consequences, I'd say it should stay. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 00:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now: It's still a developing story; it could be a flash in the pan, or it could have a lasting effect. For the time being we have a half-way decent article on the subject which doesn't scream "delete me", so I don't see the current need to merge or delete. ^Falling _Gravity 01:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and no merge. Article Google memo is long enough to be an independent article. If merged into another article (e.g., Google#Criticism_and_controversy or Google#Corporate_affairs_and_culture or Criticism of Google, etc.), then it will make the content about this memo disproportionately long in that article. -- Neo-Jay ( talk) 02:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep. This AfD is a waste of time. The topic had enough source coverage in its first three days (10+ articles across multiple reliable, secondary source publications with multiple perspectives of analysis) to be independently notable from the company. Perhaps a merge discussion would have been within reason, but there's no way to look at that sourcing and say that sources don't cover it. Recentism? It already has a legacy. Try:
  Wingfield, Nick (August 8, 2017). "The Culture Wars Have Come to Silicon Valley". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331.
  Wakabayashi, Daisuke (August 8, 2017). "Contentious Memo Strikes Nerve Inside Google and Out". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331.
    czar 04:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep due to significant coverage and discussion from nearly every major news source (NYT, Fortune, etc.). -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk) 05:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Anthony Ivanoff - this story is culturally significant. We dont want to be accused of shutting down debate. Keith Johnston ( talk) 06:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the vast number of sources covering this story (check Google News) demonstrate's the memo's significance. It should not be merged to the Google article because there has been significant discussion and analysis, both pro and con, about the memo, both from Google officially and from reliable sources, such as a professor whose work was cited in the memo. With time, I believe more of this discussion can be mentioned in the article in a way that conforms to our guidelines and policies, but a subsection in the Google article would be necessarily very short in order to not give WP:UNDUE weight to one employee's criticisms of the company, and a memo the distribution of which is (at this point) a relatively minor event in the history of Google. The memo advances an argument that goes much, much bigger than just Google, and argues against strategies for increasing diversity that are mostly not unique to Google. Hence, if it were to be merged anywhere it would be more appropriate to merge it to Women in computing (but I am definitely not recommending that either!) than to Google.-- greenrd ( talk) 07:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Here's a fun fact. We don't even have a separate article for the Unabomber manifesto. And that one was a big deal since, you know, he threatened to blow shit up until it was published in a major newspaper. But somehow it's absolutely essential that we must have an article on this dinky little thing? Come on people, some perspective please. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The Unabomber manifesto is included under the article on the Unabomber, thus making it an integral part of the same subject. You couldn't tell the story of the Unabomber without the Manifesto. You can tell the story of Google without this memo - which is looking to be more of a Silicon Valley cultural discussion. It might not shake out that way, but it's way too big for a merge already.-- A1Qicks ( talk) 08:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - thoroughly discussed even in the central newspapers here in the Czech Republic (e.g. http://byznys.ihned.cz/c1-65839250-zeny-se-pro-praci-v-it-nehodi-napsal-zamestnanec-googlu-firma-ho-vyhodila) - it looks like a cause of worldwide importance.-- Ioannes Pragensis ( talk) 10:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Ample evidence of independent notability. Kleuske ( talk) 10:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep American topics about gender typically generate a lot of coverage in news sources. This is the case here. f e minist 12:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge per NOTNEWS and NOTCASESTUDY, which also means not magazine. The arguments above about 'significance' are silly from an encyclopedic treatment standpoint, and the arguments that it is all about something else or broader, are plainly against keeping a standalone article. We do not keep or do magazine articles about some 'cause celeb' among some chattering class of the day. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) And now, below too on news argument, which is reason to delete. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC) The arguments below are more of the same: 1) people do routinely get fired for writing things, especially at work; 2) there is nothing new about any of these arguments in society, they have been made over-and-over sometimes halfway decently sometimes not; 3) sure Google is large across the world, so its internal issue du jour is covered across the world, with all kinds of people weighing in, that's what routine is - and again the arguments are this thing is about somethings larger, which means it is not stand-alone. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep A significant news story covered by a great variety of legit sources and will continue to receive coverage as the fallout continues. siarach ( talk) 13:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge Sounds like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART, coverage by RS does not make it notable. Also the chances of WP:LASTING looks fairly slim with coverage falling off quickly, even at this point. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is an important topic, a developing current event. Datagod ( talk) 14:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge This is not a noteworthy event for a standalone article. The arguments above that dramatically insist on the manifesto's importance appear to be from people who are disgruntled that the guy got fired. Wikipedia should not be in the habit of making martyr articles for every edgy contrarian that gets fired from his job. 172.56.7.160 ( talk) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Important development in censorship in the United States. Zigzig20s ( talk) 15:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• I think it would have been better to wait and see how this developing story develops before bringing it to Afd but as we're faced with what is basically a binary choice here, I'd say keep. The Google memo and the company's reaction and the broader debate over both memo and corporate reaction is proving to be notable. And a well-balanced, neutral article will summarize how there has been a backlash both against sentiments in the memo and the company's (over?)reaction to same. It's frankly laying bare a social divide in a number of ways, with a greater notability than any of the participants I'm sure intended. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep a notable controversy within the topic of Women in STEM fields. Although WP:109PAPERS says "Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers", the controversy has generated enough coverage to warrant an article distinct from the article Women in STEM fields. Google is a major international corporation, so its response to the controversy is notable because it sets the bar for other organizations. I think citing WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion is wrong. WP:NOTNEWS is for routing news stories, and this story is not routine. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now – incident seems to have a reasonable chance of acquiring long-term notability. Smyth ( talk) 16:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge - should not stand alone as its own article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT; not even sure it will be noteworthy enough in the longer run to have more than a brief mention in a parent article. Minor 4th 16:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The story is receiving heavy media attention, the scope of which goes well beyond Google. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and no merge and rename to something more specific. This has become a lightning rod for a broader discussion about both (1) gender discrimination (against both males and females) and (2) free speech (specifically, do employees have the right to express views different from others, even internally). The number of citations of this is growing rapidly, and it's likely that this will continue to be cited for many years to come (making it very Encyclopedia-worthy). It also needs to be its own article (not merged), because there are multiple issues here, making it inappropriate to move into one place. I can imagine it being cited in Women in computing, or Google, or Censorship in the United States, and probably other places as well. The Unabomber manifesto was clearly tied to the Unabomber, so merging made sense there, but merging does *not* make sense in this case. I *do* think that this should be renamed to the unambiguous title "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", since that is its title. Google produces a massive number of memos, so the current title is absurdly ambiguous to the point of being incorrect. Dwheeler ( talk) 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The mainstream media is flooding with articles about this story. Anywhere on the internet the headlines are dominated by this story, wikipedia has had pages for lot less important and lot less popular topics. I see no reason to delete.
• Keep. The author might not be notable, but the public reaction and Google's reaction certainly are notable. Algr ( talk) 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This topic has received wide media coverage and discussion across country. It's more significant than everyday news. Demondmd ( talk) 18:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I think this might be a candidate for a SNOW close. Jdcomix ( talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• This is probably going to be notable enough to keep as its own page (but it suffers from all the difficulties in accurately assessing notability that come up whenever editors create a page "ripped from the headlines"). But in any case, it needs to be moved to a better pagename. There must be vast numbers of memos at Google, and this particular one is not the primary example, so it should have a more precise pagename. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, it is the only famous Google memo, so I see no problem in leaving that as the title. Plus we need to keep it as simple as possible. Renaming it "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" or anything else would probably make it more difficult for readers to find. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 19:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I realize that this isn't really the right venue to discuss page moves, but there are other options than that, and readers searching for the page can always benefit from redirects. Offhand, "Google gender memo" seems to me to be a better option. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge as suggested above or delete. And please let this run a little longer before closing this discussion. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is still an important development and topic under discussion, a matter that will most likely end up in courts. Please keep - too early to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.46.232.65 ( talk) 20:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS; also, previous experience on Wikipedia has amply demonstrated that an article on an event such as this cannot help but become an ideological "culture war" battleground. If kept, I fully expect it to be under GG sanctions within a month. 69.159.83.14 ( talk) 21:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Received enough coverage for a standalone article. HampsteadLord ( talk) 22:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep Well covered in secondary sources. Arkon ( talk) 23:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow Close and Rename these AfDs on "controversial" news stories almost never end in deletion, and this one won't either. There's no point in merging this article; a rename is called for but that should be discussed on Talk:Google memo, not here. It's WP:UNDUE to merge this to Google because people will continue to add excessive amounts of detail. Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

CREATE NEW PAGE ABOUT James Damore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.92.19 ( talk) 00:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Not only is this a huge news story, it is likely to have a lasting effect on how Google is known to the public. Roger ( talk) 02:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep clearly meets GNG. Ample sourcing. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- will have lasting impact, especially in the context of dispute with the Labor Department over its pay practices. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep It has lasting effects in public and in Google (one of the biggest companies world wide). Furthermore it has a huge impact on discussion world wide in various newspapers.-- Rævhuld ( talk) 06:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and no merge. Article Google memo is important enough to be kept. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krubaks ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename to James Damore memo, since Google has disassociated itself from Damore. - Mardus / talk 10:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep needed for NPOV as Google article is pro Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwarsleia ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In other similar cases, WP:TOOSOON might have applied, but the limitation of the "withstand-the-test-of-time" principle is that, should e.g. a nuclear war start today, I'd expect an article on it started legitimately within seconds, and definitely not after waiting for a while to see whether lasting notability is achieved or not. Here, a bomb (of sorts) has been dropped too, it's not difficult to see that it looks likely to have major global repercussions in society, and possibly also in science. If that (fairly reasonable) prediction of future notability fails to materialize, we'll fix it. GregorB ( talk) 14:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep. Big repercussions. Rename the article to the publication's name, "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" with perhaps redirects from names like James Damore memo and Google memo. -- Nanite ( talk) 18:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. as part of culture wars, including in Wikipedia itself. (The wiki struggles are mentioned here btw.) Rename to "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber memo" Zezen ( talk) 19:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - incident with significant diversity hiring and freedom of speech implications, with major international coverage. Rami R 19:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• merge to google article per V Marek The RECENTISM is not what we do here. In a couple of years people will not even remember this stupid thing happened. "Likely to have major global repercussions" is the worst kind of CRYSTALBALL-gazing short-sighted "let me make some shit up to make this sound Really Important" bullshit imagineable (see On Bullshit). We are not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog ( talk) 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep clearly notable, and with major implications. This is a massive waste of time. CJK09 ( talk) 19:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Google#Corporate affairs and culture. Yes, lotsa coverage, but any news story related to America's zeitgeisty cultural and ideological divisions will get that. There's a distinct lack of substance here, nonetheless. We have the memo, itself probably not a milestone in the history of political thought, and a lot of reactions that amount to mutual accusations of sexism and intolerance. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Google is the place to cover this for now, briefly, and if it develops further a spin-off can be considered.  Sandstein  19:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is an important topical subject relevant to the general public. Wadaad ( talk) 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete it, delete any remarks on Wikipedia about any of scientific references from his (if I am not assuming his so-called gender), delete any remarks on Wikipedia about any of the scientists involved with the papers he mentions. We need to delete all the truths that hurt feelings. - Yours truly, Ministry of Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.219.252 ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename it "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and create redirects to it from "anti-diversity memo", "James Damore" and "Google memo". It is a cultural lightning rod and shouldn't be merged at present.Doug4 20:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug4 ( talk • contribs)
• Keep. Topic important enough and discussed across the world. Deserves WP treatment. This discussion is a waste of time. Superp ( talk) 20:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This has all the hallmarks of a full fledged cultural event. The memo - full content and arguments, the extreme media reaction which includes unusual levels of incriminations, sites getting DDoS attacks for posting on the subject, major internal turmoil inside Google. Resulting lawsuits (labour protection board is now suing Google), and the still raging arguments pro and con. This is not a localized news scandal, nor is it a subplot within Google various travails. Jazi Zilber ( talk) 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Close early to avoid wasting even more time on this. CJK09 ( talk) 23:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Obviously a big and widely-discussed enough topic to merit its own article. Burying it in the middle of a broader Google article doesn't do it justice. Binarybits ( talk) 00:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Acres of coverage and significant enough for its own article – no need to merge. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 00:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This has massive amounts of coverage in every form of media, numerous heated responses by critics and supporters, and could lead to widespread policy changes or a lawsuit. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The paragraph on this that has been added to Google's main article already takes up more than half of the section it's in. And it contains a deficit of details, not a surplus. Writing a Google memo article, which will understandably evoke strong reactions of many types, is an exercise in writing neutrally. I think it will be good for Wikipedia to let that play out. Connor Behan ( talk) 17:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This issue is receiving huge amounts of attention no matter where you look (news media, academic articles and discussion, social media, etc) as well as generating calls for Federal action against Google. It is likely to have a lasting watershed effect, not only concerning Google itself but also the larger issues that the memo deals with. The memo has practically singlehandedly opened up a national or international debate on these issues by moving discussion into the open. The article currently cites plenty of material to justify a separate article, and is surprisingly balanced despite the heated controversy (and despite the POV tag which it doesn't currently deserve). I can't help but think that the person who nominated it for deletion, and the early supporters of same, wrote their opinions before this issue exploded into the largescale phenomenon that it now is, which is probably why more recent votes have been overwhelmingly "keep". GBRV ( talk) 17:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Note: the article has been renamed to Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. CJK09 ( talk) 17:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG-- DynaGirl ( talk) 17:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:WEIGHT. WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Besides, it's too long and complicated to fit into the main article. The summary in Google Criticism and controversy doesn't even do the issue justice as a summary. -- Nbauman ( talk) 19:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG but rename -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 20:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, because this thing has gotten much bigger and more important in the last few days. Dogman15 ( talk) 22:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Easily notable enough. ShadessKB ( talk) 22:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Definitely keep (at least for now), this is another prime example of the anti-PC movement which has been around and active for decades. AwesomeSaucer9 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 August 2017 (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.