Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination)

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 Delete. This is a tricky one. Although the keep votes vastly outnumber the delete votes, the arguments made by the delete votes are greater than those made by the keep votes. Looking over reasons for sources proving notability, 13 out of 18 are from the site itself, Ref 7 doesn't work, two more refs only link to sites that have it in a directory, and the last two are from other sources that could establish notability but fall just below the line. The majority of keeps are per previous consensus (I closed that one also), and claims that other less notable subjects have articles. Neither of these address the issues list in the nom or by opposes. Therefore, although the votes say keep, the strength of arguments say delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Google

The Church of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a joke page that reflects the opinions of a joke website. It is not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not where it states 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was accidentally CSD deleted on March 15, because the February 2008 AFD notice had not been added to the article's talkpage (hence it was a legitimate mistake). The article is was in a bad state still, hence it's back here at AFD. See background discussion at User talk:DGG#The Church of Google. Thanks.
  • Comment. This appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system as the article and its variants have under gone multiple AfDs with the majority closing as DELETE:

Thus, the consensus of consensus (a meta-consensus) would suggest the article ought to be deleted. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no such thing as a meta consensus on WP. — Becksguy (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For Google's Sake people! Why is this even being considered for deletion? It's not noteable enough? What the hell is so wrong with the article? Someone is upset cause it's a parody religion? Well same with The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Oh and please, let us not forget The Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is just stupid that the CoG's article is being nominated for deletion (AGAIN!). Seriously, just keep it. It's notable enough....shit here is a quick definition of the term notable: "noteworthy: worthy of notice; "a noteworthy advance in cancer research"" The CoG to me is definatly noteable...--rzm61 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which is official policy: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I can't find any reputable seconday source like an article in the LA Times. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS does not specify the size or scope of news organizations that may be cited from Wikipedia. It is perfectly normal, in the absence of mainstream news organizations like the LA times to cite a number of smaller or web-based news organizations such as these. Celarnor Talk to me 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that sounds an awful lot like 'Original Research'. See Wikipedia:No original research which is also official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline and not policy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research offers forth some kind of thesis or experimental results never before published. Matter of factly repeating information from primary sources about a notable topic is consistent with encyclopedic tradition. The article is not arguing anything, nor is it some kind of original scientific theory. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are sometimes acceptable for verifiability but are never acceptable to prove notability. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good number of primary sources are sufficiently acceptable to prove notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever the status of sourcing for notability was before, primary or whatever, there certainly are sufficient independent, third party, and significant reliable sources now to satisfy notability and your concerns, TPH. Please reconsider. — Becksguy (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. There do seem to be quite a few reliable sources (see my reply below), however they are mostly in the "external links" section. It would be best if the blog sources were removed and primary sources were lessened. (I've never edited the article, nor have any interest in it. I simply saw it removed from {{Irreligion}} and was curious.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't understand where all you guys are getting the idea that this is notable. Has anyone actually examined the refs? Sure there are 24 refs, but 14 are to the churchofgoogle.org page itself (first party, doesn't count for much), 2 are to something called gozkino.com, which doesn't load for me, one is this, which isn't a source for anything, and five are to blogs (see WP:SPS). That leaves one "page of the month" mention on about.com (worth something, but not every page that makes that list gets a WP article) and a CNN op-ed about Google being God that doesn't even mention the subject of the article. What makes this notable again? Oren0 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I foolishly assumed the links at the end of the external links were pointing to these google news archive sources, which I had seen mentioned in the previous AFD. The primary and unreliable sources should be replaced with these more reliable sources. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Oren0 (I'd be inclined to put this in the WP:NFT category, in fact). Half the references are primary sources (which FWIW do NOT establish notability), and none of the others are reliable sources. I'm not too sure about about.com either -- it's pretty much a Wikipedia mirror these days. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Procedural Speedy Close - With a Keep AfD only three weeks ago, this is out of process and seems pointy to me. It makes absolutely no sense that consensus would change in three weeks. Come back and renominate in three months, if you still think it should be deleted. There was some discussion (I can't remember where, but I don't believe it made it to guideline status) that it would be a good idea that renominations should have a mandated minimum period before the renomination could take place to avoid this kind of issue and forum shopping. For this article, the closing rationale in the 2nd AfD was: The result was Keep. Both sides make good arguments here, but in the end, this does have sources and as as much of a "meme" as some of the other faux-religions that have articles on Wikipedia. To me, the delete arguments here and before seem to boil down in the main to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that's not a valid reason to delete. In any case my !vote is Strong Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN and several keep arguments here and before, especially by DGG and LGRdC. It's a perfectly valid and encyclopedic article that can be cleaned up, as many articles can be and should be before being nominated for deletion, per WP:DP which says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. — Becksguy (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —— PS: Changed from Procedural Speedy Close to Strong Keep for clarity, since first !vote seems moot at this point, only since the AfD is almost over. However, there is still a major process issue, as explained, with this nomination. — Becksguy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree there: this debate should NOT be speedily closed as consensus is not clear at this stage. The delete arguments are nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NOTAGAIN but because the sources cited have been scrutinised more closely and found to be insufficient. Maybe a deletion review may have been more appropriate, but we're into another AfD anyway, so we might as well just let it run. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAGAIN is a procedural and process issue, as it's unreasonable and disruptive to renominate an article three weeks after a keep AfD close, although I'm AGF. Why let it run? Don't we have more AfDs than we can handle or that anyone can even reasonably keep track of? Yes, WP:IDONTLIKEIT was applied to the deletion arguments. However, to repeat, having poor references is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to look for good ones. And we did have consensus in the 2nd AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but per WP:SK the fact that there are now three of us in addition to the nominator having given "delete" !votes renders this discussion ineligible for a speedy close. And granted, the discussion may have started off on an IDONTLIKEIT footing, but since then it has highlighted the fact that the so called "reliable sources" that got it through the previous AfD are nothing of the sort, and this does need to be taken into consideration now. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage from reliable sources. The only reference to a reliable source isn't even about the subject. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — significant coverage by multiple reliable sources? No, I'm afraid not — this church is not notable. Come back with sources (which appear to be unavailable) and I'll reconsider. EJF (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sources - I agree with the deletionists that the sourcing for this article is horrible. However, it's simply not true that there are no reliable sources. One just needs to actually look in more than a casual way. After bypassing the self referential citations and blogs listed in the article, I find that there are more than sufficient reliable sources, including several newspaper/magazine articles I located via Google (CoG?), and a couple provided by Quiddity, as listed below (and added to the article):
  1. Matheson, Hilary (January 17, 2008). "Web Worship: Spaghetti Monster, Google touch a nerve on all sides of the religious issue". Norwitch Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) - From GateHouse News Service.
  2. Matheson, Hilary (January 17, 2008). "Web Worship: Spaghetti Monster, Google touch a nerve on all sides of the religious issue". Tauton Daily Gazette. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) - From GateHouse News Service.
  3. Sweas, Megan (February 1, 2007). ""Blessed art thou amongst search engines"". U.S. Catholic Magazine. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. "Google Finds Religion". Security Pro News. May 4, 2004. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. Ohrt, Andreas (November 1, 2006). "CURIOUS TIMES". Boise Weekly. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. "The Apotheosis of Google". Pandia. April 27, 2004. Retrieved 2008-03-20.
  7. "The Church of Google". Atheists and Agnostics, University of Alberta. Retrieved 2008-03-20.
Is it as copious a list as appeared in the article, no, but it's more than sufficient. If I find more, I'll add them. — Becksguy (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Added refs #8 & #9 Now #6 & #7 — Becksguy (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Removed Chicago Sun-Times from list as not sufficiently RS, leaving 8 references. — Becksguy (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Removed Tech Republic as a blog, leaving 7 references. — Becksguy (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of these sources, [1] and [2] are the same article. [3] and [5] don't say anything about it and seem to be stale links or something. [4] and [6] are unattributed. And [7] is not evidence of anything. That leaves us with one article only two months ago. This is not notability; it is an attempt at promotion. It belongs on Wikipedia only after it becomes a phenom, not as part of the strategy for getting it there. Tb (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alright, here we go. First, as mentioned, we had a AfD for this article 3 weeks ago. For wassup to just delete it was wrong. I'm glad that it has been restored. Second, again, a "meta-consensus" does not work, because they were consensuses for DIFFERENT ARTICLES. The Church of Google != Universal Church of Google, and each CoG article was different. Yes, right now the article needs work, and definitely more reliable sources. But it is in now way the worst article on WP. 12.35.116.194 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep while I still consider this religioncruft, they've got the sources to back it up and, as said, this is way too soon to renominate. JuJube (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, the only coverage in RS is of the 'isn't this funny' kind, such as in the US Catholic, or in passing, in the Chicago Sun-Times. Lack of detailed coverage in reliable sources spells delete for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Mostlyharmless: I think you missed the point. The two sources you mentioned are at the bottom of the list in terms of amount of coverage on the Church. The Gatehouse articles (in at least two newspapers) have 797 words on Church of Google. That's rather significant coverage. The newly listed Pandia article is 544 words, and the Tech Republic article is 413 words, to pick the articles with the most coverage. Our job to to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and then improve the article. There clearly is more than enough here for notability, even as noted by others. I even just added two more references to my list, which total nine now. Saying that the coverage is of the "isn't this funny" kind is original research, in that's it's an interpretation of the sources. The totality of the sources just don't support your delete !vote, and I ask you to reconsider. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm standing by my delete nomination despite these sources. To be quite honest there are far too many articles these days that scrape through AfD on only a tiny number of sources, and it is making Wikipedia look like a joke. A small number of sources can be justified in some cases (e.g. for subjects in categories where receiving any coverage at all is rare) but my personal opinion is that where coverage is as thin on the ground as this, there needs to be some convincing reason as to why the article should be kept. (You may wish to see User:Snthdiueoa/On notability for a more thorough outline of my opinions on what should and should not be kept in these cases.) —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, may not have met standards before, but has reached them now IMHO, despite Snth's fine essay. Also per JuJube and Becksguy. More background from parody religion would be nice. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Now neutral So there are apparently two reliable 3rd-party references, so we've almost got borderline notability here. But I am very concerned that we are being played here. The references section was purposely puffed up with fluff to make it look more notable than it really is, and the author is now pseudo-spamming all the other "fake" religions (Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Church of the SubGenius) with See Also links to this article. I am worried Wikipedia is being exploited to bootstrap the notability of this "phenomenon." I don't like to see Wikipedia creating information out of thin air, so I'd rather just see the article go, and let these fine folks establish unquestionable notability all by themselves. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you come up with only two RS from a list of nine that I complied: including several newspapers, Pandia, Tech Republic, and a university. All with significant, independent, and all but Chicago Sun Times with more than passing mention. One would hardly expect a Catholic publication to go into much detail about a religion that pokes fun at them, and yet, even it has 140 words, significantly more than a passing mention. It's a small article but it qualifies as RS. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an valid argument. You are correct that the extensive self references is an issue and I was debating deleting all them, except for a few external links, and I guess I will now. In addition, the article is in poor shape, but those are issues that should be addressed by editing, not deletion, per WP:N. BTW, the term is parody religions, not fake religions, from a long tradition of parodies and satires in our culture. The word fake implies deceit when these are parodies. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here, as this article has more than sufficient RS. Edit the article rather than destroy it. Deletion is an extreme last resort only justifiable when there is no intrinsic notability, clearly not the case here, as even you admitted. — Becksguy (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the "fake" vs. "parody" thing, I didn't mean to be disparaging. For the record, I think those parody religions are cool. heh... That said, your reply doesn't assuage my feeling that Wikipedia is being exploited here. I'll strikeout my characterization of the # of RSes, but I still don't get warm fuzzies about this article. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And at least some of your nine "reliable sources" are blogs... I haven't clicked on every single one, but at least some of them are questionable. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was nice of you. I'm removing the Chicago Sun-Times as it's a mention in passing and therefore really doesn't qualify as RS. But I bypassed all the blogs, and there were hundreds listed in the Google hits and a bunch listed in the article. That leaves eight in my compilation, and I didn't see any indication that they were blogs, but look for yourself. You should of seen the ones I threw out. As to the article: If the self referential citations and links you are worried about were removed, would you feel better about the article? Because I don't like them either and think they don't belong there. The article does need an overhaul. — Becksguy (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The techreview article is also a blog, as far as I can tell. I guess you are right about the others, though... I have struck my "weak delete" vote. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair and thank you. Now I'm going to work on the article and get rid of as many problems as I can. Come back and check in a bit. — Becksguy (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right about Tech Republic, Jaysweet. I got it mixed up with a technical news aggregator, but it's a blog. Good catch. I'm removing it from my list and from the article also. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the author of which the above speaks of spamming. I just wish to make clear that I thought that the CoG fell under the same category as those other religions, and so I thought it appropriate to add the links. I am sorry if this practice is frowned upon on WP. Honestly, I didn't know. I just thought that since like does with like under "See Also," trhat it would be appropriate to add links there. No fluffing intended. Actually, no fluffing realized. Sorry. Oh, and same goes for the references. I wasn't going for a bunch of references, but rather to more easily organize the article. Again, I wasn't trying to fluff. Just Accidentally misusing the system."The universe is a figment of its own imagination" - Douglas Adams (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's certainly more notable than many other articles on wikipedia and so many other parody religions get an article. Why not this? 83.254.37.112 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under Googlism. That name seems to be more suitable IMO. --Brand спойт 09:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not notable. The only external reference to "googlism" is the existence of a single student group at one university, where it is not even clear that the group exists. The other references are to the page itself. This is clearly something someone made up someday. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia documenting a parody religion, but Wikipedia is not to be used as part of the parody, which is what's going on here. Tb (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is for The Church of Google, the article is entitled "The Church of Google", the Church refers to itself as the "The Church of Google" (or CoG) on their website front page. All seven reliable sources (plus all the sources I didn't use as they were blogs or passing mentions) refer to it as "The Church of Google". Even the single article you mentioned from the University of Alberta refers to it as "The Church of Google" both as the title and in the lede. The term Googalism may refer to their belief in much the same way Catholicism refers to that belief, but not necessarily to the Catholic Church, which is one of the churches whose members profess that belief. Googlism is not the subject of this discussion. The Church of Google is, and is very well documented by multiple independent third party reliable sources as I described above. You have completely missed the point here and you are !voting on an article not under discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for putting "googlism" in quotes. When I went through the refs, I didn't find references to a group--under any description--except the one I mentioned. Can you perhaps help out by putting clear and unmistakable links here, from third parties, which refer to the "church of google"?

I am also disturbed that several of the references are to articles which do not exist or cannot be read. Tb (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, about half way up this page in a comment with the lede Comment - Sources dated 19 March at 6:21. All those links work. I complied them in one place to help everyone check the sources themselves. The article itself is in poor shape and you should have seen the stuff and links I already threw out. I'm still working on it and the links there. But that an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of those sources, [1] and [2] are the same article. [3] is unreadable (i get about one sentence). Number [4] is by "staff writer" from an often self-written rag. [5] is an article titled "X-Men Wanted" about Uri Geller. [7] is the aforementioned student group. [6] is again not authored. It seems to me something should be a phenom before it is on Wikipedia; and it is completely bogus to see Wikipedia as part of the way to make something a phenom. Tb (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Items #1 & #2 are from the same news service, true, but appear in different newspapers. That qualifies both of them, since any newspaper can run a news service article or not, depending on their judgment and oversight, in the same way that The New York Times can run an Associated Press piece or not. And if the Washington Post also runs it, that counts as an additional reliable source. The US Catholic reference, #3, may be an abstract or a short article of 140 words, in any case significantly much more than a passing mention, and acceptable as a RS. As to #4, there is no requirement that articles be signed and it's not a blog. Staff writer is acceptable and often used. #5 is a group of short pieces from the Boise Weekly, a newspaper, and the CoG is the fourth down with 110 words. Yes, it's short, but also more than a passing mention and acceptable. #6 is from Pandia, a news aggregator. And, again, articles do not have to be signed. Many aren't, even in mainstream newspapers. Two articles are dated from 2004, so this is not an overnight internet meme. If there was only one reliable source, I would agree with you, and I wouldn't have spent the multiple hours working on this, but taken together, there is more than sufficient support for notability. I don't see anything bogus or anything to indicate that Wikipedia is a party to strengthening this phenomenon, as you claim, as all we are doing is reporting what reliable sources are saying to indicate it's notability. And this church is no more or less appropriate or valid, than any other church, mainstream or not, serious or not, parody or not, whether there are 2 million members, 2 thousand, or 20 (and no, I have no idea how many members of CoG there are, not that it matters). God manifesting himself as a burning bush, or as a search engine, is just as valid or not, as believable or not, as any belief by anyone. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a acceptable reason to delete. — Becksguy (talk)
I think this is a serious problem in the discussion here. Deleting the article is not saying it's "not valid as a religion"; it's saying it's not a notable religion. The criterion is notability not "validity". I think the problem with an unsigned article, precisely in a contentious case, is that it makes it impossible to tell the origin of the story. Newspapers who carry a wire story are not necessarily making any independent judgment of accuracy or notability, just "ooh, this is cute and trendy"; likewise, an unsigned column is an indication of a lack of commitment to the story. But I'm worried that you have suddenly brought up "validity" or "believability" as if those were criteria. You seem to be saying "this religion is as believable/valid as those other ones", which is not the standard. Tb (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it's about the notability of a church not it's validity. I lost my train of thought at the end of my comment. My intention was to say something like this: Although any church (or religion) is as valid as any other, I'm concerned that there is a tendency to think that this church is less valid, and therefore also less notable. That is, a negative halo effect. But after some verbiage on this church's validity, I left out the crucial part of my comment. My apologies. My criteria is still notability, same as everyone's. And notability been more than adequately demonstrated here. — Becksguy (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been mentioned several times. This is an essay. It is not official Wikipedia policy. It is not a consensus-based guideline. It is 'just' an essay. It holds no water in a deletion debate. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, as Tb pointed out, I think Beckguy's mention of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay is off the mark anyway. I do like it, heh... I think the whole idea is pretty funny. But I am not voting Keep (I was eventually convinced to retract my Delete vote, but I will go no further than that) because the 3rd party mentions are really teetering on the borderline. When I read the Delete votes, I don't see any indication that people are doing so because they are offended by or dislike parody religions. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's true that IDONTLIKEIT is an essay, but it's perfectible acceptable as an argument in an deletion discussion, or elsewhere, and I have seen it used in a great many discussions, which establishes it's legitimate use via precedent and implied consensus. It is a shortcut for a particular argument, saves time and space, and also has a WP shortcut, which also additionally supports it's valid use. — Becksguy (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. HrafnTalkStalk 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Simply not true and a misrepresentation of the references. The references I listed here—and most of them are incorporated into the article—are independent reliable sources, and they are significantly and well in excess of the requirements to show notability. WP:RS calls for multiple reliable sources. Two sources would satisfy that requirement, and I have listed seven, after weeding. I'm assuming good faith, but you are attempting to raise the notability bar on this article way above any reasonable or policy/guideline based requirements. For example, I have seen a article on a movie, still in production, pass an AfD with ONLY two trade magazine articles (no mainstream newspapers) that essentially did nothing but list the production data, such as principal actors, director, title, genre, etc, without any critical or otherwise significant coverage. It was essentially an IMDB listing in prose form and yet they were deemed independent reliable sources for a movie no one had even seen yet. Where is the consistency across articles in applying notability? And no, this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this is about fairness and consistency in criteria application with an example. Returning to this article, the only "promotional" references are in the article itself, which is appropriate when describing the Church of Google's own beliefs or themselves. I removed all the the blogs and similar references I found from the article because they were not reliable sources. — Becksguy (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per last AfD, we have independent reliable sources talking about the Church. So keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although consensus can change, it is way too soon after the last AfD to show me that it has. MrPrada (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a detailed, source-abundant and interesting page. What more do you need? Phalanxia (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References in the article seem to indicate that it's gotten some press coverage, so I'd call it notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:19, 27 March 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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Church_of_Google_(3rd_nomination)