Deletion of Accordance

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. 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: using Google News' archive search, I found http://news.google.com/archivesearch?num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=Accordance+bible+software&um=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&tab=wn several dozen relevant articles and reviews from publications that meet the |reliable source requirements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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. ). 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)