back
3 comments
The relevant part is before that:

> This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources.

The Google search is the nominator looking for an alternative source that could make it notable, something earlier editors failed to establish.

This « rule » is infuriating. Google searches are tailored to serve us content that might interest us. In this case, Google search first page returns plenty of notable results for me. Might not be the case for a person interested in geology and dogs, though.

How could such a biased thing be a valid WikiPedia criteria?

In short, Google decides what stays in Wikipedia.

Neat. Not.

Not really,if that thing is cited on notable papers or books, it stays too.
Except if Google decides otherwise.

And then Wikipedia follows suit.

I wasn't defending wikipedia or engaging on a penis fight on the internet for no reason. I added context, because it seemed you misunderstood this specific Wikipedia rule, and considering how cryptic wikipedia is, and how often i myself misunderstood rules on wikipedia (or stackoverflow) or even in general, i thought it was the same to you and adding more information would have cleared things out.

If your original post does not come from a misunderstanding but some culture war bullshit or whatever, my bad probably, but i'd rather you go on reddit or something else, i'll probably still read you, but assume it's culture war or ragebait and leave you alone.

No.

The Google search wouldn't even have happened had the article had sources listed for the claim.

Thus Google gets the final word on whether an article is deleted.
No. The author gets the final word, by including citations as they should.