Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries
This page fails WP:WEB, which states that a site is notable if "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself; the website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation; or the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries does none of these things. Its biggest claim to notability appears to be a brief traffic spike due to a YTMND page about it a couple weeks ago. Its Alexa rank is in the neighborhood of 250,000. Delete. JDoorj a m    Talk 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. If we can find that this topic has gotten significant coverage in reputable sources, I may reconsider.  We don't need to document the internet as it happens- the Net itself does this.  Wikipedia is not google.  Friday (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: if we can find significant coverage in truly reputable sources, I will, of course, withdraw the nom. JDoorj a m    Talk 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Friday Bucketsofg 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on the talk page is mention that this site was the home to the (briefly) famous "OS X/Darwin is evil" article, which was featured on slashdot (the ./ story links to an old host, so is 404) and elsewhere, and still gets mentioned every so often. Not sure if that tips the scales for anybody. I say keep, but I'm a fan of the site, so not very objective. Staecker 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Staecker, also note that there are many usenet posts by people who don't realize that its a joke and are either shocked that its real or are actual fundamentalists posting stuff from it. JoshuaZ 04:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a good source that cites that? Simply googling it and posting the results would violoate WP:NOR; did a reliable source ever document this confusion? JDoorj a m     Talk 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I am aware of, but that's an issue for verifiability, so it wouldn't be able to go in the page. However, it valid as evidence of notability. JoshuaZ 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The slashdot story itself was posted by somebody who believed it to be a non-hoax. Many user comments showed further confusion. Staecker 13:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopedic --Doc ask?  09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The article doesn't provide much of a claim to notability, and what's there isn't externally sourced. Xoloz 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopedic topic in my view, except for apparently low notability. Alexa may be all wonky because of the name changes of the site... it may be higher than it looks. I couldn't find many inbound links via a search on Google though so I'm thinking not MUCH higher. Unless further notability information is offered in which case I'll try to come back and change my sentiment, Delete + +Lar: t/c 13:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is such a well done hoax site that we should be cognizant of the likelyhood of people coming here to verify its status as a hoax or real.  I get over 20,000 hits on Google (search term: "Objective Ministries" OR "Objective Christian Ministries" OR "ObjectiveMinistries" OR "Objective 4Kidz"), with only a few false positives.  Even if it doesn't strictly meet WP:WEB, I think we should make an exception here because Wikipedia is not paper and the site is close enough to notability under WP:WEB that other considerations should be taken into account.  Powers 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I recall perusing this site a year or so ago; might have been mentioned in the same context as Landover Baptist. Web notability is probably hard to verify via Google because of name changes.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I for one wanted more information about this site, and since it is such an elaborate hoax plus it has gone through several name changes, it's not an easy task. This site has been also been discussed at The Mac Observer.Bjorneven 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable hoax site. Agree that the general slipperiness of the site makes verifiability difficult, but also agree with the fact that the poker-facedness of the site makes it a likely Wikipedia target. (Incidentally, if anyone can find a valid source for the fact that it's a Zapatatopi side project as asserted on the talk page, it belongs in the article.) Haikupoet 04:06, 23 March 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.