Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rzm61 (talk | contribs) at 16:33, 19 March 2008 (→The Church of Google). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
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]
  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. Garmon, Jay (January 23, 2008). "Geekend: Is Google a god?". Tech Republic. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. 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)
  5. "Google Finds Religion". Security Pro News. May 4, 2004. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. Ihnatko, Andy (September 21, 2006). "Rival search engines leaving Google in dust". Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  7. Ohrt, Andreas (November 1, 2006). "CURIOUS TIMES". Boise Weekly. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Church_of_Google_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=199372179"