1850:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.
48:. 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.
2064:, 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
336:- 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...--
1740:) 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
1362:. 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.
1547:. 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. —
1710:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) documenting a parody religion, but Knowledge (XXG) is not to be used as
1657:
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.
1000:- 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
691:- 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
2059:
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.
1423:
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
1910:
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
1807:
Of those sources, and are the same article. is unreadable (i get about one sentence). Number is by "staff writer" from an often self-written rag. is an article titled "X-Men Wanted" about Uri Geller. is the aforementioned student group. is again not authored. It seems to me something should
1792:
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
884:
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
772:
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
1985:
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,
1414:
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
1542:
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,
1442:
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
Knowledge (XXG) look like a joke. A small number of sources can be justified in some cases (e.g.
1595:
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. —
1561:
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
Knowledge (XXG) is being exploited here. I'll strikeout my characterization of the # of RSes, but I
2068:
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
1845:
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
1656:
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
857:
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
575:
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
302:- Ok I think people are just getting offended that is no reason for deletion. It is notable there is a site and a church with real everyday followers Why is this getting more heat the FSM or IPU? are they really that notable? This has been on news and other places also it is well on its way. --
1594:
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
1965:
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
1762:
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
1497:
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
1424:
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. —
1537:
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
806:) 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. —
699:). 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?
1443:
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
451:
does not specify the size or scope of news organizations that may be cited from
Knowledge (XXG). 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
1828:
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
1293:
Of these sources, and are the same article. and don't say anything about it and seem to be stale links or something. and are unattributed. And is not evidence of anything. That leaves us with one article only two months ago. This is
1881:
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
376:
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
1915:. 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. —
789:
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
832:
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.
198:
1396:. 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.
1942:
has been mentioned several times. This is an essay. It is not official
Knowledge (XXG) policy. It is not a consensus-based guideline. It is 'just' an essay. It holds no water in a deletion debate. Cheers!
1637:
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. —
1532:
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
773:
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:
1873:
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
775:
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
Knowledge (XXG).
180:
150:
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
858:
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. —
1089:
692:
192:
434:
which is official policy: "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I can't find any reputable seconday source like an article in the LA Times. Cheers!
983:— 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.
664:. 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
121:
278:
250:
186:
396:
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, --
1877:
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
1510:) with See Also links to this article. I am worried Knowledge (XXG) is being exploited to bootstrap the notability of this "phenomenon." I don't like to see
1004:, including several newspaper/magazine articles I located via Google (CoG?), and a couple provided by Quiddity, as listed below (and added to the article):
824:
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
1609:
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. --
629:
Whatever the status of sourcing for notability was before, primary or whatever, there certainly are sufficient independent, third party, and significant
1576:
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. --
88:
83:
494:
1468:, 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
92:
1865:
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
717:, which I had seen mentioned in the previous AFD. The primary and unreliable sources should be replaced with these more reliable sources. --
75:
1623:
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. —
431:
320:
129:
2202:
2185:
2168:
2147:
2122:
2110:
2096:
2078:
2047:
2033:
2020:
1995:
1975:
1952:
1924:
1895:
1821:
1802:
1780:
1757:
1723:
1702:
1687:
1666:
1647:
1632:
1618:
1604:
1585:
1571:
1556:
1523:
1481:
1460:
1433:
1405:
1388:
1371:
1352:
1315:
1288:
1274:
1256:
1238:
992:
969:
956:
934:
921:
898:
867:
846:
815:
757:
726:
708:
683:
646:
621:
608:
584:
570:
542:
525:
505:
488:
479:
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!
467:
443:
424:
404:
388:
368:
345:
311:
293:
265:
236:
216:
141:
57:
1679:
1363:
2025:
It seem that significant coverage has been established to demonstrate notability throughout the discussion, though. Happy Easter! --
1678:- It's certainly more notable than many other articles on wikipedia and so many other parody religions get an article. Why not this?
17:
2027:
963:
928:
615:
578:
536:
499:
398:
2156:
1379:
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.
714:
554:
1456:
952:
894:
842:
753:
740:
category, in fact). Half the references are primary sources (which FWIW do NOT establish notability), and none of the others are
1339:
are enough to provide verifiability. The article still needs work, but the topic has attracted enough attention to be notable.
885:
sources" that got it through the previous AfD are nothing of the sort, and this does need to be taken into consideration now. —
1812:
it is on Knowledge (XXG); and it is completely bogus to see Knowledge (XXG) as part of the way to make something a phenom.
170:
1514:, so I'd rather just see the article go, and let these fine folks establish unquestionable notability all by themselves. --
1125:
1748:
as I described above. You have completely missed the point here and you are !voting on an article not under discussion. —
1444:
1744:
the subject of this discussion. The Church of Google is, and is very well documented by multiple independent third party
1229:
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. —
53:
2220:
1539:
36:
2015:
1477:
1327:. There are a good number of mentions of this topic. While most are blogs, there are also more solid sources. The
2198:
1948:
566:
484:
439:
212:
137:
1736:, the article is entitled "The Church of Google", the Church refers to itself as the "The Church of Google" (or
2219:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1499:
1401:
79:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1958:
1939:
1851:
825:
778:
324:
1683:
1507:
1367:
917:
604:
49:
2065:
912:: No coverage from reliable sources. The only reference to a reliable source isn't even about the subject.
558:
316:
307:
207:
Thus, the consensus of consensus (a meta-consensus) would suggest the article ought to be deleted. Cheers!
2119:
2093:
1699:
1503:
1328:
71:
63:
2193:
References in the article seem to indicate that it's gotten some press coverage, so I'd call it notable.
1771:
I am also disturbed that several of the references are to articles which do not exist or cannot be read.
364:
2164:
829:
786:
413:
303:
2194:
1986:
saves time and space, and also has a WP shortcut, which also additionally supports it's valid use. —
1944:
1452:
948:
943:
is quite clear that they are not sufficient in and of themselves to provide evidence of notability. —
890:
838:
749:
562:
480:
456:
435:
208:
133:
1013:
744:. I'm not too sure about about.com either -- it's pretty much a Knowledge (XXG) mirror these days. —
2181:
1473:
1447:
for a more thorough outline of my opinions on what should and should not be kept in these cases.) —
1397:
668:
516:
360:
2160:
173:
as the article and its variants have under gone multiple AfDs with the majority closing as DELETE:
2074:
1991:
1971:
1966:
indication that people are doing so because they are offended by or dislike parody religions. --
1920:
1859:
1798:
1753:
1662:
1643:
1628:
1614:
1600:
1581:
1567:
1552:
1519:
1429:
1349:
1284:
1270:
1252:
1234:
913:
863:
811:
803:
796:
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.
722:
679:
642:
600:
465:
422:
289:
261:
232:
769:
613:
A good number of primary sources are sufficiently acceptable to prove notability. Sincerely, --
337:
2143:
2116:
2090:
1696:
1336:
1177:
1140:
1104:
1066:
1028:
926:
Primary sources can be reliable, sometimes even more so than secondary sources. Sincerely, --
128:
This is a joke page that reflects the opinions of a joke website. It is not encyclopedic. See
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2006:
1384:
2061:
737:
696:
1469:
1448:
1332:
1190:
1153:
1117:
1079:
1052:"Web Worship: Spaghetti Monster, Google touch a nerve on all sides of the religious issue"
1041:
1014:"Web Worship: Spaghetti Monster, Google touch a nerve on all sides of the religious issue"
944:
886:
834:
745:
704:
534:
on Google, primary sources are perfectly sufficient for establishing notability. Best, --
341:
2060:
Two sources would satisfy that requirement, and I have listed seven, after weeding. I'm
1745:
1001:
881:
791:
741:
630:
448:
2177:
2138:
per last AfD, we have independent reliable sources talking about the Church. So keep.
2069:
similar references I found from the article because they were not reliable sources. —
1544:
940:
634:
356:
132:
where it states 'Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information'.
2070:
1987:
1967:
1916:
1855:
1794:
1749:
1658:
1639:
1624:
1610:
1596:
1577:
1563:
1548:
1515:
1425:
1342:
1280:
1266:
1248:
1230:
988:
859:
807:
799:
718:
675:
638:
460:
417:
384:
285:
257:
228:
2101:
No. Knowledge (XXG) does not have an article just because someone created a domain.
1051:
154:
was in a bad state still, hence it's back here at AFD. See background discussion at
2139:
2106:
2043:
1891:
1817:
1776:
1719:
1311:
2038:
I disagree: we have a tiny number of old references, and a lot of self-promotion.
1162:
515:
The only existing sources are primary sources or blogs. How is this notable then?
109:
1912:
1380:
713:
I foolishly assumed the links at the end of the external links were pointing to
2176:
It is a detailed, source-abundant and interesting page. What more do you need?
1298:
notability; it is an attempt at promotion. It belongs on Knowledge (XXG) only
1213:
2011:
700:
777:
To me, the delete arguments here and before seem to boil down in the main to
1511:
1198:
453:
199:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination)
984:
768:- With a Keep AfD only three weeks ago, this is out of process and seems
660:. There do seem to be quite a few reliable sources (see my reply below),
379:
2115:
A good solution is to wait and see how all that stuff will look like. --
2102:
2039:
1887:
1813:
1772:
1715:
1307:
1788:
I already did, about half way up this page in a comment with the lede
1911:
is less valid, and therefore also less notable. That is, a negative
781:. And that's not a valid reason to delete. In any case my !vote is
1659:"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" - Douglas Adams
961:
They are sufficient when dealing with sub-articles. Sincerely, --
2089:. Isn't the fact that thechurchofgoogle.org exists noteworthy? --
1957:
In addition, as Tb pointed out, I think Beckguy's mention of the
2213:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2159:, it is way too soon after the last AfD to show me that it has.
2009:, lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
1841:
also runs it, that counts as an additional reliable source. The
695:, which isn't a source for anything, and five are to blogs (see
181:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Universal Church of Google
1279:
PS - Removed Tech Republic as a blog, leaving 7 references. —
553:
To me, that sounds an awful lot like 'Original Research'. See
1495:
So there are apparently two reliable 3rd-party references, so
2086:
1265:
from list as not sufficiently RS, leaving 8 references. —
193:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Church of Google
662:
however they are mostly in the "external links" section
531:
493:
In any event, renominations in under a month seem like
155:
116:
105:
101:
97:
189:- 27 December 2006 - DELETION REVIEW ENDORSED DELETION
1512:
Knowledge (XXG) creating information out of thin air
227:
There is no such thing as a meta consensus on WP. —
187:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2006 December 20
1562:
still don't get warm fuzzies about this article. --
1590:Thank you, that was nice of you. I'm removing the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2223:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1216:. Atheists and Agnostics, University of Alberta
557:which is also official Knowledge (XXG) policy.
1714:of the parody, which is what's going on here.
736:per Oren0 (I'd be inclined to put this in the
1695:. That name seems to be more suitable IMO. --
939:This may or may not be true in practice, but
637:and your concerns, TPH. Please reconsider. —
591:Primary sources are sometimes acceptable for
279:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
251:list of Religion-related deletion discussions
8:
1090:""Blessed art thou amongst search engines""
495:Knowledge (XXG):KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED
432:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
130:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1854:is not a acceptable reason to delete. —
1302:it becomes a phenom, not as part of the
416:. I don't see any notability problems.
277:: This debate has been included in the
249:: This debate has been included in the
561:is a guideline and not policy. Cheers!
1186:
1185:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
1175:
1149:
1148:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
1138:
1113:
1112:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
1102:
1075:
1074:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
1064:
1037:
1036:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
1026:
1050:Matheson, Hilary (January 17, 2008).
1012:Matheson, Hilary (January 17, 2008).
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
555:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
2085:I may add that the Church is also
1161:Ohrt, Andreas (November 1, 2006).
595:but are never acceptable to prove
156:User talk:DGG#The Church of Google
24:
1961:essay is off the mark anyway. I
1088:Sweas, Megan (February 1, 2007).
715:these google news archive sources
171:Knowledge (XXG):Gaming the system
1128:. Security Pro News. May 4, 2004
1419:article is 544 words, and the
1084:- From GateHouse News Service.
1046:- From GateHouse News Service.
1:
2087:runned particularly in Russia
1793:a deletion issue. Thanks. —
1445:User:Snthdiueoa/On notability
169:This appears to be a case of
2029:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
965:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
930:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
617:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
580:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
576:scientific theory. Best, --
538:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
501:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
400:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2240:
2203:05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
2186:22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
2169:21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
2148:01:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
2123:20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2111:15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2097:09:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2079:22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2048:15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2034:17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
2021:17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1996:23:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
1976:14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1953:02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1925:03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
1896:04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1822:20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1803:20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1781:20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1758:20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1724:17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1703:09:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1688:20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1667:17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1648:20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1633:19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1619:19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1605:19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1586:19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1572:19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1557:18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1524:17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1482:18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1461:09:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1434:07:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1406:05:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1389:17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1372:16:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1353:10:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1316:20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1289:20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1275:19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1257:07:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1239:06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1199:"The Apotheosis of Google"
993:23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
970:03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
957:22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
935:21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
922:20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
899:21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
880:That may be true, but per
868:20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
847:20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
816:23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
758:19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
727:19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
709:19:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
684:18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
647:22:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
622:21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
609:20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
585:20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
571:18:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
559:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
543:18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
526:17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
506:17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
489:17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
468:19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
444:18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
425:17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
405:17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
389:17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
369:17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
346:12:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
312:12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
294:18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
266:20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
237:20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
217:16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
195:- 9 February 2007 - DELETE
142:16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
58:18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1837:piece or not. And if the
2216:Please do not modify it.
1500:Flying Spaghetti Monster
1201:. Pandia. April 27, 2004
1092:. U.S. Catholic Magazine
201:- 29 February 2008 -KEEP
32:Please do not modify it.
1867:not a notable religion.
1508:Church of the SubGenius
1126:"Google Finds Religion"
766:Procedural Speedy Close
355:- Seems notable enough
1504:Invisible Pink Unicorn
1329:Open Directory Project
1306:for getting it there.
1214:"The Church of Google"
1054:. Tauton Daily Gazette
183:- 18 Jan 2005 - DELETE
674:and was curious.) --
2157:consensus can change
1734:The Church of Google
72:The Church of Google
64:The Church of Google
2062:assuming good faith
1693:Keep under Googlism
1016:. Norwitch Bulletin
1831:The New York Times
1540:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1247:Now #6 & #7 —
50:The Placebo Effect
1869:The criterion is
1790:Comment - Sources
1592:Chicago Sun-Times
1535:Chicago Sun Times
1337:Chicago Sun-Times
1263:Chicago Sun-Times
998:Comment - Sources
523:
328:
319:comment added by
296:
282:
268:
254:
2231:
2218:
2032:
2030:
2019:
1846:pieces from the
1835:Associated Press
1746:reliable sources
1732:This AfD is for
1351:
1345:
1243:PS - Added refs
1224:
1222:
1221:
1209:
1207:
1206:
1194:
1188:
1183:
1181:
1173:
1171:
1170:
1157:
1151:
1146:
1144:
1136:
1134:
1133:
1121:
1115:
1110:
1108:
1100:
1098:
1097:
1083:
1077:
1072:
1070:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1045:
1039:
1034:
1032:
1024:
1022:
1021:
1002:reliable sources
968:
966:
933:
931:
742:reliable sources
673:
667:
658:Keep but cleanup
631:reliable sources
620:
618:
583:
581:
541:
539:
521:
519:
518:Ten Pound Hammer
504:
502:
497:. Sincerely, --
403:
401:
314:
283:
273:
255:
245:
119:
113:
95:
44:The result was
34:
2239:
2238:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2221:deletion review
2214:
2195:JeremyMcCracken
2028:
2026:
2018:
2010:
1945:Wassupwestcoast
1886:the standard.
1839:Washington Post
1472:would be nice.
1470:parody religion
1377:Procedural keep
1343:
1340:
1333:GateHouse Media
1219:
1217:
1212:
1204:
1202:
1197:
1184:
1174:
1168:
1166:
1163:"CURIOUS TIMES"
1160:
1147:
1137:
1131:
1129:
1124:
1111:
1101:
1095:
1093:
1087:
1073:
1063:
1057:
1055:
1049:
1035:
1025:
1019:
1017:
1011:
964:
962:
929:
927:
671:
665:
633:now to satisfy
616:
614:
579:
577:
563:Wassupwestcoast
537:
535:
517:
500:
498:
481:Wassupwestcoast
436:Wassupwestcoast
399:
397:
209:Wassupwestcoast
134:Wassupwestcoast
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2237:
2235:
2226:
2225:
2208:
2206:
2205:
2188:
2171:
2150:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2014:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1979:
1978:
1959:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1940:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1852:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1826:
1825:
1824:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1727:
1726:
1705:
1690:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1635:
1621:
1588:
1574:
1527:
1526:
1484:
1474:John J. Bulten
1463:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1409:
1408:
1398:Mostlyharmless
1391:
1374:
1356:
1355:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1277:
1259:
1241:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1210:
1195:
1165:. Boise Weekly
1158:
1122:
1085:
1047:
1006:
1005:
995:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
873:
872:
871:
870:
852:
851:
850:
849:
826:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
819:
818:
779:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
760:
731:
730:
729:
686:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
624:
589:
588:
587:
548:
547:
546:
545:
522:and his otters
510:
509:
508:
473:
472:
471:
470:
428:
427:
407:
391:
371:
349:
348:
330:
329:
321:209.234.81.129
297:
271:
269:
242:
241:
240:
239:
205:
204:
203:
202:
196:
190:
184:
175:
174:
163:
162:
161:
160:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2236:
2224:
2222:
2217:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2189:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2172:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2151:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2134:
2124:
2121:
2118:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2095:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2067:
2066:WP:OTHERSTUFF
2063:
2058:
2055:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2017:
2013:
2008:
2004:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1941:
1937:
1934:
1933:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1708:Strong Delete
1706:
1704:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1680:83.254.37.112
1677:
1674:
1673:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1593:
1589:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1536:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1441:
1440:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1422:
1421:Tech Republic
1418:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1364:12.35.116.194
1361:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1261:PS - Removed
1260:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1215:
1211:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1179:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1142:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1106:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1068:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1030:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
996:
994:
990:
986:
982:
979:
971:
967:
960:
959:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
932:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
914:DCEdwards1966
911:
908:
907:
900:
896:
892:
888:
883:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
854:
853:
848:
844:
840:
836:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
820:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
794:which says:
793:
788:
784:
780:
776:
771:
767:
764:
761:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:Strong delete
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
687:
685:
681:
677:
670:
663:
659:
656:
655:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
625:
623:
619:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
601:DCEdwards1966
598:
594:
593:verifiability
590:
586:
582:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
549:
544:
540:
533:
529:
528:
527:
520:
514:
511:
507:
503:
496:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
474:
469:
466:
464:
463:
458:
455:
450:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
429:
426:
423:
421:
420:
415:
411:
408:
406:
402:
395:
392:
390:
386:
382:
381:
375:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
331:
326:
322:
318:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
295:
291:
287:
280:
276:
272:
270:
267:
263:
259:
252:
248:
244:
243:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
178:
177:
176:
172:
168:
165:
164:
159:
157:
153:
148:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2215:
2212:
2207:
2190:
2173:
2152:
2135:
2056:
2002:
1982:
1962:
1935:
1883:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1848:Boise Weekly
1847:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1809:
1808:be a phenom
1789:
1770:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1711:
1707:
1692:
1675:
1591:
1534:
1494:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1465:
1420:
1416:
1393:
1376:
1359:
1341:
1324:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1262:
1244:
1218:. Retrieved
1203:. Retrieved
1167:. Retrieved
1130:. Retrieved
1094:. Retrieved
1056:. Retrieved
1018:. Retrieved
997:
980:
909:
795:
782:
774:
765:
762:
733:
688:
661:
657:
626:
596:
592:
512:
476:
461:
418:
409:
393:
378:
373:
352:
333:
299:
274:
246:
224:
206:
166:
151:
149:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
2155:. Although
1913:halo effect
1843:US Catholic
1833:can run an
1492:Now neutral
1488:Weak Delete
1245:#8 & #9
1187:|publisher=
1150:|publisher=
1114:|publisher=
1076:|publisher=
1038:|publisher=
830:WP:NOTAGAIN
787:WP:NOTAGAIN
783:Strong Keep
763:Strong Keep
532:sub-article
414:WP:NOTAGAIN
410:Strong keep
394:Speedy keep
315:—Preceding
304:drgoofymofo
300:Strong Keep
1871:notability
1449:Snthdiueoa
1220:2008-03-20
1205:2008-03-20
1169:2008-03-19
1132:2008-03-19
1096:2008-02-19
1058:2008-03-19
1020:2008-03-19
945:Snthdiueoa
887:Snthdiueoa
835:Snthdiueoa
746:Snthdiueoa
669:Irreligion
635:notability
597:notability
2178:Phalanxia
158:. Thanks.
2071:Becksguy
1988:Becksguy
1968:Jaysweet
1936:Comment.
1917:Becksguy
1856:Becksguy
1795:Becksguy
1763:google"?
1750:Becksguy
1640:Becksguy
1625:Becksguy
1611:Jaysweet
1597:Becksguy
1578:Jaysweet
1564:Jaysweet
1549:Becksguy
1516:Jaysweet
1457:contribs
1426:Becksguy
1344:SilkTork
1304:strategy
1281:Becksguy
1267:Becksguy
1249:Becksguy
1231:Becksguy
1178:cite web
1141:cite web
1105:cite web
1067:cite web
1029:cite web
953:contribs
895:contribs
860:Becksguy
843:contribs
808:Becksguy
800:Becksguy
754:contribs
719:Quiddity
676:Quiddity
639:Becksguy
627:Comment:
477:Comment.
462:Celarnor
419:Celarnor
361:Camaeron
317:unsigned
286:Becksguy
258:Becksguy
229:Becksguy
167:Comment.
122:View log
2161:MrPrada
2140:JoshuaZ
2057:Comment
2007:WP:NOTE
2003:Delete:
1983:Comment
1415:listed
513:Comment
225:Comment
89:protect
84:history
1810:before
1417:Pandia
1394:Delete
1381:JuJube
1335:, and
981:Delete
910:Delete
770:pointy
738:WP:NFT
697:WP:SPS
689:Delete
530:For a
117:delete
93:delete
46:Delete
2120:спойт
2117:Brand
2094:спойт
2091:Brand
2016:Stalk
2012:Hrafn
1700:спойт
1697:Brand
1300:after
882:WP:SK
792:WP:DP
785:per
701:Oren0
457:these
449:WP:RS
359:...--
338:rzm61
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
2199:talk
2191:Keep
2182:talk
2174:Keep
2165:talk
2153:Keep
2144:talk
2136:keep
2107:talk
2075:talk
2044:talk
2005:per
1992:talk
1972:talk
1949:talk
1921:talk
1892:talk
1879:lack
1860:talk
1818:talk
1799:talk
1777:talk
1754:talk
1720:talk
1712:part
1684:talk
1676:Keep
1663:talk
1644:talk
1629:talk
1615:talk
1601:talk
1582:talk
1568:talk
1553:talk
1545:WP:N
1543:per
1520:talk
1478:talk
1466:Keep
1453:talk
1430:talk
1402:talk
1385:talk
1368:talk
1360:Keep
1325:Keep
1312:talk
1285:talk
1271:talk
1253:talk
1235:talk
1191:help
1154:help
1118:help
1080:help
1042:help
989:talk
949:talk
941:WP:N
918:talk
891:talk
864:talk
839:talk
812:talk
804:talk
750:talk
723:talk
705:talk
693:this
680:talk
643:talk
605:talk
567:talk
485:talk
440:talk
385:talk
374:Keep
365:talk
357:WP:N
353:Keep
342:talk
334:Keep
325:talk
308:talk
290:talk
275:Note
262:talk
247:Note
233:talk
213:talk
138:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
1884:not
1875:not
1742:not
1738:CoG
1296:not
985:EJF
828:or
524:•
412:.
380:DGG
377:is.
281:.
253:.
2201:)
2184:)
2167:)
2146:)
2109:)
2103:Tb
2077:)
2046:)
2040:Tb
1994:)
1974:)
1963:do
1951:)
1938:.
1923:)
1894:)
1888:Tb
1862:)
1820:)
1814:Tb
1801:)
1779:)
1773:Tb
1756:)
1722:)
1716:Tb
1686:)
1665:)
1646:)
1631:)
1617:)
1603:)
1584:)
1570:)
1555:)
1522:)
1506:,
1502:,
1480:)
1459:)
1432:)
1404:)
1387:)
1370:)
1331:,
1314:)
1308:Tb
1287:)
1273:)
1255:)
1237:)
1182::
1180:}}
1176:{{
1145::
1143:}}
1139:{{
1109::
1107:}}
1103:{{
1071::
1069:}}
1065:{{
1033::
1031:}}
1027:{{
991:)
955:)
920:)
897:)
866:)
845:)
814:)
798:—
756:)
725:)
707:)
682:)
672:}}
666:{{
645:)
607:)
599:.
569:)
487:)
459:.
454:as
442:)
387:)
367:)
344:)
327:)
310:)
292:)
264:)
235:)
215:)
152:is
140:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
2197:(
2180:(
2163:(
2142:(
2105:(
2073:(
2042:(
1990:(
1970:(
1947:(
1919:(
1890:(
1858:(
1816:(
1797:(
1775:(
1752:(
1718:(
1682:(
1661:(
1642:(
1627:(
1613:(
1599:(
1580:(
1566:(
1551:(
1518:(
1498:(
1476:(
1455:|
1451:(
1428:(
1400:(
1383:(
1366:(
1348:*
1310:(
1283:(
1269:(
1251:(
1233:(
1223:.
1208:.
1193:)
1189:(
1172:.
1156:)
1152:(
1135:.
1120:)
1116:(
1099:.
1082:)
1078:(
1061:.
1044:)
1040:(
1023:.
987:(
951:|
947:(
916:(
893:|
889:(
862:(
841:|
837:(
833:—
810:(
802:(
752:|
748:(
721:(
703:(
678:(
641:(
603:(
565:(
483:(
438:(
383:(
363:(
340:(
323:(
306:(
288:(
284:—
260:(
256:—
231:(
211:(
136:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.