Talk:The Text This Week

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


From VfD:

Not encyclopedic. 22:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • First note that unsigned votes do not count on VFD; log in please. Secondly, the topic is encyclopedic, or rather, it would be if it is notable. Alexa gives a rank of 126,059 which I think does make it noteworthy. Dunc_Harris| 22:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll match your Alexa ranking and raise you a 5820-hit Google search. It looks like a semi-significant online biblical resource, but my eyes aren't trained to recognize such things. I think we should keep it. --Ardonik 02:27, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • At the risk of ending the world, I vote keep. It's notable, in-use, and appealing to a large community. There are multiple sites like this that work with the other liturgical calendars, but I would vote to keep the tops of each of those, as well. Geogre 02:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, just wanted to point out that it appears that there are lots of pages that link to it/list it, but the only page that I found actually discussing it praised it highly, but called it a "closely guarded secret". I have doubts. Postdlf 05:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I was away when this page was raised on VfD. As the page's originator, let me say why I feel that it is encyclopaedic, in case the question arises again.

  • First, as a Methodist local preacher I use this site constantly. I know that's just a personal datum, but it seems to me to be a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for thinking that something is notable is that you have noted it yourself.
  • I know a number of other preachers who also use it extensively, and I often come across references to it that imply that it is a widely used resource.
  • Most important, I wanted to use TTTW as a reference in editing another Wikipedia article (Cana), and I think others could usefully do the same; it's a convenient way of avoiding having multiple external links on a small topic. Given that, I think that there should a page on the site in the encyclopaedia to enable a reader to assess how reliable it would be as an authority, and what POV it would be likely to be taking. That isn't necessary for a standard learned journal, or even book, because there are standard means of assessing them, but it is important for web sites, which are of very variable authority.

seglea 01:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)