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[edit]

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.

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]
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]
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. 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]
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]
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]
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]


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.
More