Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davkawriter

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davkawriter

No indication of notability. Postoak (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - software has been covered by the Jewish Press and Jerusalem Post many times. For example, Jewish Press, Jerusalem Post. There is nothing trivial about this coverage. Obviously, the software doesn't have much appeal to non-Jews, but such is not required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such requirements were stated. Nomination was not because of the lack of appeal to any religious groups. Postoak (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense was intended. I was merely stating that the fact that it only appeals to a small group of people doesn't mean it isn't notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very weak delete In November 2007, the article was flagged as "unsourced". In June 2008, four specific points in the article were flagged as "citation needed". I'd rather see a rewrite, but the only USP I found, is content that any self-respecting TanaKh Study Software would include. The only reviews I found were rewrites of what Davka's PR department wrote. If tt ever won any awards, it isn't mentioned on their website.jonathon (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure I understand what you are saying... Do you think all 15 stories in Jerusalem Post/Jewish Press are PR rewrites? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In as much as they all are obvious paraphrases, I am suggesting that they are nothing more than PR releases. jonathon (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This review would probably also be considered to be from a reliable source --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important software, with adequate sourcing available. Reviews are what best show software to be notable. DGG (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Item found in written of in depth in reliable sources... includng reviews. Concerns for article style are a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:36, 4 June 2009 (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.