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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:10, 18 March 2008

The Church of Google

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]

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:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Church of Google - 18 Jan 2005 - DELETE
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 20 - 27 December 2006 - DELETION REVIEW ENDORSED DELETION
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google - 9 February 2007 - DELETE
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination) - 29 February 2008 -KEEP

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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable enough WP:N...--Camaeron (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep last time round was a keep, and it was only 3 weeks ago. The last one is the one that matters--how is this different from repeated delete nominations?? WP includes internet jokes and memes if they are notable enough. This one is.DGG (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the previous nomination resulted in keep less than a month ago; consensus has obviously changed to be on the side of this article for Winter 2008. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. WP:NOTAGAIN. I don't see any notability problems. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:53, 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]

Comment. While the previous nomination was a month ago, the AfD history of this article was not properly noted on the article's talk page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In any event, renominations in under a month seem like Wikipedia:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only existing sources are primary sources or blogs. How is this notable then? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For a sub-article on Google, primary sources are perfectly sufficient for establishing notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 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]

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]
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)[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]

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]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 *'''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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. I'm not too sure about about.com either -- it's pretty much a Wikipedia mirror these days. —[[User:Snthdiueoa|Snthdiueoa]] ([[User talk:Snthdiueoa|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Snthdiueoa|contribs]]) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Procedural Speedy Close''' - With a Keep AfD only three weeks ago, this is out of process and seems [[WP:POINT|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.''  — [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
+::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. —[[User:Snthdiueoa|Snthdiueoa]] ([[User talk:Snthdiueoa|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Snthdiueoa|contribs]]) 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''': No coverage from reliable sources. The only reference to a reliable source isn't even about the subject. [[User:DCEdwards1966|DCEdwards1966]] ([[User talk:DCEdwards1966|talk]]) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)