Talk:Googlism

Is it notable?
I'm aware that googlism is a popular site, but I question its notability. Has there been significant news coverage about googlism(I see the article mentions the site was part of a ZDnet article, about.com, ect but this isn't really enough to call something notable, is it)? Is googlism a significant part of culture?

I say we delete this article. Its a short article that says very little about a site that's only mildly important. Nlm1515 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It assets its own notability with references, so that's not a valid reason to delete it. Xihr 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One reference is the googlism site itself. The other one is PC Magazine. A few magazines making a reference of something does not constitute "significant news coverage". I still say we delete this.Nlm1515 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's notable. It exists, Wikipedia is supposed to cover as many subjects as it can. Have a disambiguation page at least.--Curtis95112 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Ah, but if there wasn't a more notable thing with the same name it would probably be in WP, on the other hand, your cat probably wouldn't. --Curtis95112 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter if it exists. Wikipedia has guidelines that indicate some things aren't notable enough to deserve an article. Should I make an article about my cat? That exists.Nlm1515 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Church of Google
This article has been subject to recent vandalism. This article is about the web based application called Googlism, not about The Church of Google or any religion named Googlism, as claimed by vandals. If you wish to start an article about the topics mentioned, please do so rather than vandalising this page.

I have removed the reference link to The Church of Google as it has no relivence to the article in any way. If you belive that the link should be included, please discuss.

Aiyda 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually came to this page to see if there was an article for the "religion".  as long as there's a "googlism" page, we may as well include at least a mention of the church of google.  btw, i think it's hilarious, and everyone should check it out.--Rukiddingme? 06:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That one person was looking for it doesn't indicate much of anything. If anything, there should be a disambiguation link at the top if the "church" is worthy of its own article.  At this point, it seems hard to believe that it's notable enough to warrant one. Xihr 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If one person is searching wikipedia for an article on Googlism as in the religion, I think it is safe to assume that many more are doing the same (as I did) LittleMatchGirl (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's real. Don't dis my religion: Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. And, it wasn't vandalism. I feel that since Wikipedia exists to make information readily availible to the world, you shouldn't delete something just because you personally do not think ti has merit. Consult some people beforehand, next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scikidus (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. Regardless, the place for discussion for restoring that (separate) article is not here. Xihr 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If not here, then where? --Curtis95112 (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A separate article, obviously. Xihr (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a seperate article at the moment because we are discussing if there should be a seperate article. --Curtis95112 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is hard to see how the subject matter of this hypothetical other article would be notable enough to survive the inevitable AfD that it would experience, so the answer is probably not. Xihr (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion.

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Copyright infringement

Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)

Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic

Inappropriate user pages

Inflammatory redirects

Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources

All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed

Articles about newly-coined words or terms (i.e. neologisms) not supported by reliable sources.

Overcategorization

Patent nonsense or gibberish

Redundant templates

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

Vandalism that is not correctable

I don't see how the church of Google meets any of those categories.--Curtis95112 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You forgot the obvious one: notability. Xihr (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I got this straight off WP:Reasons for deletion. By the way try clicking on the random article link a couple of times, you'll be surprised at how many unnotable articles there are.--Curtis95112 (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not being notable is all that matters; it is virtually guaranteed that such an article would quickly be AfD'd and would not survive, and I'm not even suggesting I'd be the one to do it. And that there are many non-notable articles extant on Wikipedia today, which is certainly true, is not exactly an argument for why another non-notable article should be created and sustained, since that argument won't mean anything in an AfD. Xihr (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are articles in Russian and Japanese about the Church of Google, linked to this article as an English version of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.149.93 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
Now that Googlism (religion) has been speedy deleted (it was a fake religion after all, anyway), this page should be moved to Googlism, without the need for a redirect. Xihr 19:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FAKE? Who said anything about Fake? I think it's real, and I could just as easily say that you religion, if you have one, is fake. I argue that THe Church of Google should be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scikidus (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if its fake or not, it's parody religion and WP has articles on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and etc, Googlism(religion) shouldn't be ignored just because there's something more notable of the same name--Curtis95112 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Googlism.gif
Image:Googlism.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Outdated info?
The article currently claims Googlism's database doesn't have any information from after 2004. Considering that you can go to Googlism and get results for the iPhone, Lady Gaga, and even Jared Loughner, it seems this is not the case. 68.222.102.32 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)