Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church management 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. - Philippe 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Church management software

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Deletion per What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deletion per Overcategorization: Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Church management software is a stub with vague and obvious platitudes about office software. Church management software is just like any other non-profit management software. For example, Microsoft Office used in a church is no different than any other office. The references aren’t convincing that this topic is so notable that it needs its own article. Non-notable. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Comparison of church management software is also up for deletion; the two discussions may or may not impact one another.  Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a stunningly boring article but seems notable enough. The NYTimes article is substantial but doesn't seem to use the term Chruch management software explicitly. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Church Managment software is an extremely notable piece of technology Fatsdom (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User has made no other edits JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep bad article on a notable topic. Needs some work and merging in Comparison of church management software is a good place to start. --Rtphokie (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Comparison of church management software before we evaluate the whole topic. Pace Fatsdom I don't see any inherent notability at all here. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is well-written and well sourced, even despite its briefness, and is definitely notable. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a well-sourced article and I'm sure it can be expanded upon. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, The NYTimes article is the only source that I would consider as reliable and independent. And this article is not about church management software as defined in our article, rather the NYTimes article is about use of IT in churches.  The latter is probably an article candidate, and one that content from this article could be fruitfully incorporated into.  But the current article is simply not notable. Taemyr (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Changing to Keep I suppose we need to see the churches communities as independent of the software they use.  And  although written like a Q&A column seems on closer look to be an article.  Taemyr (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree. Merge to Comparison of church management software and then talk about them together.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 14:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this article makes more sense as the one to keep rather than Comparison of church management software. Merge of the more useful columns in that table has been done, take a look and see what you think.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced, the term isn't as important as the concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it well sourced? There are three sources, only one of which is about the topic.  The NYTimes one is about generic use of IT in churces and the publicopinion one is about use of technology in churches.  Taemyr (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to actually read the referenced articles, not just scan the first few paragraphs, then give up. The New York Times article states: "Specially-designed software for church management, to track contributions and membership, can be used by savvy pastors to minister to their congregants, said Pat Faudree, a spokeswoman for Shelby Systems, which is a leading church management software company." That single sentence defines the concept and gives it notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I can agree that the sentence defines the concept, it does not give it notability according to wikipedias standard for notability. To demonstrate notability there must be significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent articles.  According to WP:NOTE this means that the source needs to address details of the topic.  Taemyr (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * E pluribus unum --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fail to see the relevance of this motto. If you are critizing my use of the failing of one article to imply the failure of all sources then note that the NYTimes was drawn forward as an example by you.  As such it behoves me to point out that it does not demonstrate notability.  However I have come to the opinion that the churches should be seen as independent of the software used, and I have no reason to assume that churchsolutionmag or christianitytoday fails to conorm with our requirement for reliability so these sources do demonstrate notability.  Taemyr (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick google scans make it look like this is a common term used to describe this type of software. Support merging the comparison article into it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you wish to add nothing to the debate? This is not a vote. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, and merge in Comparison of church management software. Appears to be a notable software category, though the references could stand to be improved a bit. Klausness (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep References and sources establish notability. Stubbiness is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems like a rather unusual collection of non notable material. --Stormbay (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.