Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorify

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Glorify}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Glorify}})

despite the obscene amount of money spent creating hte app, the coverage consists almost entirely of WP:MILL, specifically about 40 million dollar funding and doesn't appear to have much in the way of true in depth independent coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

::Comment: The service/app is a new, unique approach to worship that has not been done yet. This app is being adopted by churches, as well as non-church-going christians and even non-christians alike. It's engaging in growing the practice of christianity through technology. This hasn't happened in the last 2,020 years (going back to the beginning of Christian measured time here). There are 14 independent, credible sources covering this. Calm and Headspace are similar but less of a story, with fewer reliable sources. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 20:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

:::No, all of hte sources are literally about investment funding (which is quite mind boggling, but I won't go into why here.)

:::New doesn't mean notable, who uses it doesn't mean notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

:::And Calm is at least realistic, with a massive userbase and isn't claiming an obscene amount of funding. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

:::::A "massive user base" doesn't make an organization notable. As per WP:Notability - Article content does not determine notability your comments about the funding are irrelevant, notability is determined by the coverage outside of wikipedia, and the reliability of those sources. The UK Times, Bloomberg and Religion News are just three of the reliable sources which have covered this subject in depth. So the itch about the obscene amount of funding is really a moot point. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

:::They've been preaching on TV since at least the 70's, that's pretty techy. This is an app that got funding, with little else to say about it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: The alleged references are pure churnalism covering a large investment, but there is nothing in terms of significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources about the app itself. I am not persuaded that this passes WP:GNG. It is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• :And what sticks out to me the most and makes me even more skeptical is the fact that several sources have different investment figures, including a printed paper which says 190 million, one says 40 million and another says 84 million - on an app that has no ROI and is free and has less users than it's larger counter parts (like Calm, Headspace) and yet has 60 employees. Not to mention that none of those sources have verified the investment funding itself and have taken it from Beccle and his partner. Something fishy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• :::comment: @Praxidicae OMG finding organic articles to write is not easy.... and when you find one based on your own day to day activity, and there are solid, reliable sources it's unreal how quickly and vehemently the deletion proposal arrived. This article has 14 sources which include 3 separate articles in the UK Times. All sources are editorial in nature, with authors, not interview-style, all secondary. How does this not pass GNG? The figures vary because they are different articles written at different dates & times and the results change with time. In some cases refer only to a specific investment from one party rather than the entire amount of funding received. based on when the articles were written, for the wikipage I posted the most recent data representing the totality rather than piece parts. The Wikipedia article does not mention ROI and I found no data on this, so I'm not sure why it's being introduced here as discussion, feels aggressive to imply something fishy. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• ::::Churnalism is churnalism is churnalism. It really doesn't matter how often you try to tell us that it's editorial. Some things are impossible to polish. If you find real sources then that will make a difference. I looked, and failed. You have work to do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• ::::That's the joy of wikipedia, you get to learn the ins and outs of the thing. I've been doing this for almost 20 years, trust me, stick with it long enough and it gets to be an amazing thing. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacking in in-depth coverage in reliable sources. That the article creator thinks it's unique and thinks that people are adopting it is neither here nor there. If independent secondary sources say these things, then we can talk. Bishonen | tålk 22:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC).
• Weak Delete funding reports and press relesaes aren't notable/reliable sources. Well, it's covered in Forbes [https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2022/05/03/creepy-mental-health-and-prayer-apps-are-sharing-your-personal-data/?sh=638607254672], calling it a creepy app that steals your data. Not the sourcing they want I think. Brief mention in the Wall Street Journal [https://www.wsj.com/articles/religion-apps-attract-wave-of-venture-investment-11640088001] Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

::The Forbes article is written by a contributor, which also makes it unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Mention in the Wall Street Journal article is trivial. Throast (talk | contribs) 07:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete beyond the funding information Prax referenced, I'm only able to find trivial mentions. Nothing that adds up to notability. Possibly TOOSOON, but don't see it worth draftifying as it's unlikely that usage will add up to notability in a six month window. Star Mississippi 16:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: The sources are reliable and the topic is notable as 14 reliable sources doing in-depth stories (not just about funding). The sources include The Times (UK), Bloomberg, Religion News, and others. There are three Times (UK) articles alone -- as well as many of the others that describe the service in detail, discussing the perceived crisis in faith, the pervasive depression due to the pandemic lockdowns and how more people have turned to Glorify (and other services like it) in droves. The articles also provide substantial info on the backgrounds of the founders, which I purposely excluded since I felt it would lean it toward being promotional sounding. The Times articles go into great detail; their stories are not just about funding sources and how much money they've raised. I have full copies of those articles if anyone is restricted from seeing (subscription only, but you get the first 3 free) them in the event that is the cause of the focus on the funding. The Real Serena Joy^Talk''' 18:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• :The Times article would be better used to write an article about the "pervasive lockdown depression"; this app is one of many used, no better or worse than the rest of them. You could lump them together and make a rather interesting article on the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Perennial sources, & review pray.com wiki page

In addition to the points I've already made above, praxidicae, Star Mississippi, Oaktrree b, Shellwood, FiddleFaddle, (basically everyone who has taken the time to select this article to review in the AfD discussions and vote quickly) I'd like to point out that the wiki page Pray.com, created in February 2021 was approved in Wikipedia, and it has far fewer reliable sources than Glorify does. Would you all agree that It too mentions funding and is actually more promotional-sounding than the article I wrote on Glorify, especially given some of the recent changes contributed by Jay (thank you). I suspect that Glorify was put on speedy deletion by someone who may have been asked to intervene on this page by another editor who is harassing me on a truly ridiculous dispute on another page. I hope that is not the case and I'll assume good faith despite the timing of the nomination to the publishing of the page indicates there wasn't even enough time to find, let alone read the article and the sources objectively before nominating it. Aside from that - perhaps you all can help explain why Pray.com is acceptable and Glorify is not if we're all using the same rules here. The main argument presented by opposition is about the funding discussion in the source articles Why? Neither the wiki page, nor the sources used for it, focus exclusively on the funding, and even if they did - how does that make this article promotional? The secondary argument is that the article is promotional - it would help if you would outline specifically which statements are promotion and just remove them, and the final argument is that the sources are not reliable so please explain how The Times, Religion News Services, Bloomberg minimally are not being accepted by each of you as "reliable" when both Religion News Service and Bloomberg are on the perennial list of sources clearly defined as "reliable?" Thanks & best, The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

:*The article was not too big and I thought the promotional content could be tweaked. Since I declined the speedy delete, I felt I had to do my part to see what could be rephrased. Probably draftify and wait for it to get accepted. Comparing with other poorly written but accepted articles will not help this. The poorly written ones will get deleted eventually. Jay (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The Forbes article isn't about the app, it briefly mentions people in a 30 under 30 list. It's trivial coverage. Reliable, yes. Non-usable due to trivial coverage. The Christian Times is the same thing, minimal mentions of the app and has more of an interview with the founder/creator. Rest are all in a similar style. Reliable sources, yes. Trivial coverage, yes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

:There are no links to Bloomberg in the article, so I can't judge the sourcing. Unsure how we'd classify the Religious News Service. As for the Pray.com article, it has sourcing in USA Today, the Catholic Press and Vox among others, those are higher quality sources, devoting a fair amount of space to the subject. Your app might be a bit too niche to gain much attention from the mainstream press, that's fine, it's just not allowing us to maintain the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

::@Oaktree b see source #10 for Bloomberg. I didn't mention Forbes, I mentioned The Times, Religion News, and Bloomberg sources. All lengthy articles, not passing mentions, etc. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 17:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

:::I thought we'd already dis-allowed the Forbes source as it's a funding announcement and basically an interview with them? Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

::::and the Religious News is not in our list of sources, it appears to be a distributor of religious news reports, unreliable. See here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Radio_Free_Asia]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks @Jay, draftify addresses the previous comment by Star Mississippi noting possible TOOSOON. I would support that, rather than deletion if there is no consensus for keep, which there doesn't appear to be so far. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.