Talk:The Text This Week

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

From VfD:

Not encyclopedic. 213.94.236.118 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)

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Untitled