Deletion of The Church of Google (3rd nomination)

Comment: Seems notable enough 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Although onsensus can change|consensus can change, it is way too soon after the last AfD to show me that it has
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: 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 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml_landing_tt.pl?page=aml_article_print&item_id=0286-29383636&purchase_type=ITM&action=print this, which isn't a source for anything, and five are to blogs (see ).  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: 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.  Two sources would satisfy that requirement, and I have listed seven, after weeding. I'm |assuming good faith, 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  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 similar references I found from the article because they were not reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: 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 |reliable sources, including several newspaper/magazine articles I located via Google (CoG?), and a couple provided by Quiddity, as listed below (and added to the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Procedural Speedy Close - With a Keep AfD only three weeks ago, this is out of process and seems |pointy 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 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: ''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.'' To me, the delete arguments here and before seem to boil down in the main to . And that's not a valid reason to delete. In any case my !vote is '''Strong Keep''' per   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  which says:  ''If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTAGAIN||WP:DP)