Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination)


 * 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 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 Wikipedia. The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Google
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete we deleted this a while back and it has reincarnated or resurrected depending on one's belief set :-) Either way, it still isn't encyclopedic and ought to be salted this time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not delete thisIf church of Google is deleted it will not be fair until all other articles on parody religions like Flying Spaghetti Monster and Landover Baptist Church are deleted. Church of Google is almost as old as Flying Spaghetti Monster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotogen (talk • contribs) 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge It seems to be notable (just): news hits. At worst, it should be a redirect to Parody religion which mentions it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, it's a non-notable neologistic attempt at humor. Majoreditor (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect Although it is very funny, I don't think that it is encyclopedic. Is there another area that it could be moved to in Wikipedia that would be more appropriate?  perhaps the Parody religion that Colonel Warden mentions ...it is funny. --Pmedema (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Look. We are serious. At least to a degree. The CoG is about making a point. There's an article for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, no? We may not have many "reliable" sources, but just so everyone is aware, we are doing a press release in April. We are not here to plagiarize Wikipedia. We are not a flash-in-the-pan joke, as our two-year existence shows. Yes, this article has been deleted in the past. Yes, I attempted a previous attempt. But this time, I put in a lot of work and sources, and I think the article should stay. Yes, we are a parody religion. But if the Invisible Pink Unicorn gets an article, why not us? We're not defaming anyone, I tried my hardest to write neutrally. Why isn't it encyclopedic? Because some people have the temerity to make the arguement that a search engine properly fits the definition of a god? Where is the neutrality now?&quot;The universe is a figment of its own imagination&quot; - Douglas Adams (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and add it in Unusual Articles of Wikipedia (see the section and think about is or isn't encyclopedic, or wikipedic). There are parody religions in Wikipedia (Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster). Therefore, keep it. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not a religion exactly, of course, but a notable concept or joke or meme or parody. I dont think its a parody of religion, exactly, but rather of google-based culture.--a there are certainly sources.  DGG (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep! I don't see any reason as to why this article should be deleted. This is a pretty well written article. Also if other religions and parody religions get their own wiki, why can't the CoG get their own? rzm61 (talk) 9:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge If you would just bother to Google for it, you would see that it has >50000 hits for "church of google". Oh wait, did I just fall in a logic loop? ;-) Sergio Ballestrero (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable (70 800 000 hits Google). Europe22 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Is there not the religion of the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' on wikipedia? What makes church of Google any different? User:Allpwrflvexx —Preceding comment was added at 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, while I appreciate the appropriate wit of the nominator ("reincarnated or resurrected depending on one's belief set"), I nevertheless note that the article is well-organized and contains numerous references demonstrating notability. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replace. Please note that Googleism is a religion that has been around for quite a while and has several sects already. However, The Church of Google sound a little bit like a self-promoted article and it seems like another sect of the googleism trying to persuade the public away from the true grounds of googleism (or trying to modify it/or trying to establish a pattern of belief). It can sound funny specially because most of the people would not take it seriously but encyclopedically speaking, Googleism deserves its own article while The Church of Google does not. Therefore, I believe that it would be more adequate to replace an article about the church of google with an article about googleism. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this in an interesting "thought experiment" about reliion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newell Post (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, There are MANY other parody religions with Wikipedia articles. The CoFSM, Church of SubGenius just to name two. I smell some sort of double standard. The CoG has been around for about two years now and has generated quite a bit of publicity and news. It deserves a place within Wikipedia. Without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.50.85 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up and justify I would like to draw evidence to your policy of rejecting as a reason to delete pages. Well how do we know that google is not 'god'? Ok sure it was programmed by a human but someone could just say the engine is a digital incarnation of a real diety? Just as easily the argument could be reversed. Either way WP:IGNORENCE is a reason to KEEP this article. If people find it offensive? well this isn't a small site, there is bound to be thousands of articles you'll find offensive. This church although laughable, does exist and therefore deserves a place along side the greats. Like the aforementioned Pink horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.201.55 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - non-notable, unlike the FSM (and Googlehits is the worst possible metric to use for discussing this one). WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are not viable arguments for retention. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep for all the other problems with the article there are multiple reliable sources linked at the bottom of the article in the external links section. They just need to be used to actually source the article rather than be listed at the bottom. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The topic may be notable, but the current page reads like a homepage of the religion, not an encyclopedia article. I would be willing to vote keep on an encyclopedia article on this topic. Matchups (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2008 (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.