Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Google Bombs


 * 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. Not a chance this will be kept; unencyclopedic and original research. kingboyk 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Google Bombs
This is a weird one. If we allow a page on Wikipedia called List of Google Bombs with clickable links to the bombs in question, each Wikipedian clicking those links actually strengthens the bomb if they go to the link (which parses the bomb title to google) and clicks on the first link they see. This is the same sort of problem (although clearly to a lesser extent) as if we were to allow "list of clickable links that try to exploit your browser", by the very technical nature of the article, it poses a problem. Secondly, this Wikipedia article would be essentially adding to it's own notability by directly influencing the phenomenon on which it commentates; consider a page with a simple hit counter on it that Wikipedia links to in an article called "This Page Receives a Lot of Hits", the same technical theory applies in that the existence of the article makes it more true. I added subst:prod to this page and it was seconded, the author of the page essentially told me to go away and leave it alone, removing the tags, which while not against any policy shows a poor dismissive understanding of someone else's point of view. I believe this page is not catered for in existing policies but all the same, it's not an encyclopedia article. Elomis 03:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete-In addition to the "effect worsening" explained in the nom, no third-party sources are cited whatsoever. It appears all of these were found by typing the word in, which would be original research. Seraphimblade 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Brimba 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While I suppose an example in google bomb would be acceptable, if a good source for them can be demonstrated (And I think there may be one or two), this whole list is probably not a good idea. Maybe somebody can start their own webpage on google bombs and put this there.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Some of these made me smile, some of them alarmed me. But I thin WP:BEANS should apply to google bombs, in that Wikipedia should not encourage them.-- danntm T C 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though an interesting article, it certaintly isn't encyclopedic.-- TBC Φ  talk?  04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless I'm missing some JavaScript trickery, there is no "effect worsening" because Google has no way to tell that you clicked the top link, only that you searched for the "bombed" term. --Dgies 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's part of the way Google works, (there's more to it than that but) people who search for a term and click on a result 'strengthen' that result, results that are ignored are probably not 'good' search results so they are demoted. When Wikipedians click links in List of Google Bombs they are, whether they realise or not, searching for that term through Google. Subsequently clicking the results strengthens the link and exacerbates the Google bomb. Elomis 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, to clarify between Dgies and Klomis, Google returns a small fraction of its results pages with the links embedded in Google links, e.g. http://www.google.com/blahblah/www.example.com/. Most results pages do not embed the links.--Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom wtfunkymonkey 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. J I P  | Talk 07:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. - jlao   0  4  11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not an encyclopaedia article. Pcbene 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I can see the catch-22 here. We need to include examples -- and the list is interesting and no less encyclopedic than other list articles -- but it could make things worse. Suggest pick a few notable examples (i.e. any that received media coverage) and mention them in the main article, perhaps with the URL "non-hotlinked" in order to satisfy the citation requirements. 23skidoo 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. per BADJON Storm05 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BJAODN is not an essay, guideline, or policy, let alone a criteria for speedy deletion. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  20:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.