The result was Keep. There seems to be a fairly substantial consensus to keep this article. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This article attempts to describe non-public information about the inner workings of a technology company. Although Google is obviously notable, internal information about the company's workings is not encyclopedic. Relevant information can be merged into the main Google article or a History of Google article, but as it stands this article does not meet WP:V or WP:NPOV.
While I love Google as much as the next guy, I don't believe that this article merits inclusion as it stands. JRP ( talk) 07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
And you haven't addressed at all the central challenge in the nomination, which is that Wikipedia editors piecing together the internal workings of a company by extrapolating what the company says in its public announcements, is a novel synthesis of sources, prohibited by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please counter that. (Hint: A brief search for books reveals that countering it will be relatively easy.) Uncle G ( talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
But you're right about the rationale - I haven't dealt with the central argument posed by the nominator. I'll just counter by saying that any OR should be removed (and the rest of the article shouldn't be punished). We don't delete articles about notable subjects simply because they're currently full of OR. Looking at the reflist and a quick search reveal several sources (I haven't checked for reliability, though) explaining Google's technology. If there isn't enough public information then that's another issue. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE Here's another quote from the article: In a 2008 book, the reporter Randall Stross wrote: "..Google's executives have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep the company's hardware hidden from view. The facilities are not open to tours, not even to members of the press." He wrote this based on his own experience of visiting the company and interviewing staff members. If this is true, then this article cannot pass WP:V. JRP ( talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply