Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is primarily a massive linkfarm. Blatant violation of WP:NOTLINKS policy. Talk page indicates it has been speedily-deleted before, and possibly the subject of another AfD, but I can't find a record of that. In any case, it's a clear violation of policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Prod was back in March '08 and refers to this bundled AfD. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. noticing that there are too many links is a reason to edit an article, not delete it. The nominator hasn't shown this is an unencyclopedic topic. There seem to be plenty of sources. A few are already cited in the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It isn't the responsibility of the nominator to prove a negative. It is the responsibility of the editors of the article to prove that the topic is encyclopedic. Has that been done? Maybe, maybe not. If the encyclopedic value is uncertain, then it's ripe for AfD nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's your responsibility to provide a rationale for deletion. You provided a rationale for editing the article to remove the excess links, but there was nothing about deleting the actual article, which contains much non-link content. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the issue is too many external links, then delete all the entries that don't have wiki articles. jonathon (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that I read the article's talk page more carefully, it might be acceptable if all the links, both internal and external, were deleted and replaced with a single link to Category:Electronic Bibles or something similar to handle an unwieldy and unmaintainable list. This appears to have been proposed over a year ago, but evidently nothing changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unwieldy/unmaintainable argument applies, only if they are no criteria to determine what is notable enough to be on the list. The simplest solution to that non-problem is to list only the programs that are notable enough to have their own article. jonathon (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Possibly too many external links, but even that is not clearly true (and would require cleanup, not deletion, in any case). Well written introductory discussion combined with discussion and links to many software products that independently deserve Wikipedia articles. Strongly and obviously notable topic. LotLE×talk 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Editorial control, potentially delete a section but not the whole article I don't have delete opinion on this article. I do endorse Pseudo daoist's option above to remove the indiscriminate spam farm list leaving only those with wiki articles. That section should be deleted if not cleaned up.Miami33139 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The topic is notable and has gotten a lot of coverage over the last 15-20 years in the Christian press. The links are an editorial issue and can be dealt with as such.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 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.