Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church software

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. Consensus exists that the subject is notable, and any issues with it are no appropriate for AfD. (non-admin closure) ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church software

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

See also talk page of merged article: Talk:Church management software

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Surely this article should be deleted - the first paragraph has essentially zero citations and is simply stating some obvious reasons as to why some churches use software for projecting lyrics. The second appears to be a promotion for church specific management software (rather than a more general piece of management software), and while it contains citations, they're little more than obsolete magazine articles. There's no useful information in this article whatsoever. If the article was going to be improved and expanded upon, it would have happened to at least a degree in the last five years. As it stands at the moment, the page's history shows that it's much more likely to attract vandalism and promotions than it is worthwhile content. It should go. 88.97.39.34 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was tagged for AfD, but the above statement was then posted at Talk:Church software. As the IP editor appears to be inexperienced, I have started this AfD discussion page and moved that editor's rationale here. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have curated this article in the past, attempting to make it encyclopedic and non-promotional. I'm a potential user of such software, and have no connection to any product or provider. The page could probably do with updating, to check the links and add more recent citations, and I am willing to do this again. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article has just been significantly reduced in length by Theroadislong (talk · contribs), removing material which I had considered acceptable, e.g. [1] removed as "unsourced opinion". – Fayenatic London 07:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That example sentence is vague (What kind of "online products" and why are these distinct from offline software?; What is "collaborative planning of church services" and why is it important to note that as a feature only of online products?; Does "online products" mean web applications or any software that can communicate online?) and potentially WP:WEASELly. I empathize with wanting to keep the article WP:USEFUL, but I'm not surprised the unsourced content was removed. I suspect that much of the removed content is true, but it is anecdotal evidence when it need to be WP:VERIFIABLE. However, I doubt most editors would object if you added a source to support the claim while restoring the content. —Ost (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin I am very surprised you would consider unsourced content acceptable? Theroadislong (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic of wide relevance to religious organisations, already contains reliable sources such as The New York Times, the disputed content can be discussed on the talk page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. A cursory Google search shows a bunch of hits for pages related to this topic, though the quality of some of them as reliable sources may be debatable. It's still enough for me to be comfortable that this is a real and notable topic. The presence of "obsolete magazine articles" strengthens that impression, as it demonstrates that the topic is not WP:ONEEVENT. Anyone is welcome to further cull or copyedit any information considered to be WP:ADVERT. —Ost (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's part of two series of articles on office software (see [[Template:Office_suite]]) and church administration (see, e.g., [[Category:Catholic_organisations_navigational_boxes]]). Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is a notable topic. Search for "church software" on Google Scholar, you can find multiple papers on this topic. Any flaws with the current article is not justification for deletion. SJK (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.