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.
Delete : article about a specific product contains unverifiable information per WP:V. Further, references contained within the article are primarily to the product manufacturer's website and may be an advertisement or spam. Mh29255 (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you specify which ones count as reliable sources that are not more than passing references or product announcements? I read the MacWorld, Macsimum, and MacNN references listed in your search, and none that I saw provided significant coverage (cf. WP:N). They're just product announcements (the MacWorld "review" is really just stating that Accordance is now OS X native and offers some quotes from the developer). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought I had de-spammed this sufficiently after it had been expanded by a user who had a conflict of interest. The Reviews section provides links to independent sources, and I thought these were sufficiently reliable, e.g. Society of Biblical Literature. The links to Reviews on the manufacturer's site are verifiable too. Please give me guidance if it needs more. My only interest is as a user of this product. It is a market leader, see e.g. SBL link above and Christian Mac Users Group. - Fayenatic(talk)13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The things that flagged it in my mind were the lack of references to third-party sources. All of the references and inline notes are to the Accordance website, which makes it still rather spammy. It wasn't clear to me that the list of reviews were published reliable sources rather than just some user's opinion on the net. For instance, the SBL review is in the "SBL Forum". Is that an internet forum or something more reliable (e.g., can we be reasonably sure the author is who he claims to be?)? The review in MacWorld is pretty old in computer years, not to mention brief -- they give the same amount of space to Marine Aquarium 2.0, which doesn't seem to have or deserve its own article. In other words, a brief review of features in MacWorld is certainly a reliable source, but it doesn't constitute significant coverage (cf. WP:N). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply about SBL: The Society of Biblical Literature has its own article here. Its own home page says is the oldest and largest international scholarly membership organization in the field of biblical studies, founded in 1880. Sounds like a Reliable Source to me. I've rearranged the Reviews section to include a link to the SBL article. - Fayenatic(talk)19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My question wasn't about the reliability of the SBL. I am familiar with it, and it of course constitutes a reliable source in general. My concern was about the "Forum" part of their website, but I see now that it is "the online newsletter of the Society of Biblical Literature. It features essays, interviews, and up-to-date news of general and professional interest to SBL members. Its mission is to provide short, useful articles to inform, educate, and address the professional needs of biblical scholars, as well as those interested in biblical studies." Certainly that is a good source, and it would be best to have it as a reference rather than just an external link (cf. WP:EL). --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking a little closer at the results, here's how it looks to me:
Mac magazine articles and reviews with bylines (short): [1][2][3]
Abstracts of apparently longer reviews and multi-product comparisons: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
No byline -- probably reprinted press releases (if so, they don't satisfy notability): [11][12]
Passing but interesting mention about use in preparing a new translation: [13]
Comment: None of the Mac magazine articles contain anything but a basic feature list. That is not significant coverage (cf. WP:N). I can't see the pay-only abstracts (which are really the first few paragraphs, not abstracts summarizing the entire content of the article). Does anyone have access? The "no bylines" are little different than the Mac magazine "articles" in content or length, and neither qualifies as significant coverage IMO. I commented above on the reviews listed in the article itself, and my concerns have not been addressed yet. The reviews listed on the Accordance website show the most promise for answering the problems here (note, however, that the links they supply go to [apparently edited] versions of the reviews hosted on their own website, which is unacceptable as a reliable source for our purposes here -- we need the originals). Is someone willing to go through them and source this article so it is clearly notable and verifiable? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that the notability guidelines used to require at least one instance of in-depth coverage for a topic to be notable; that's been expanded to allow for multiple less-than-in-depth (but more than trivial) secondary sources:
"The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
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.