Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/e-Sword (4th nomination)

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.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e-Sword

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is nom #4 as #2 was named "second nomination" and the 3rd was "2nd nomination", so... There is a lot of excessive, likely WP:COI-based fluff around this article. Many "reviews" point to non-notable, non-reliable, or in some cases now non-existent sources. About.com is user-driven content, so that's out. The only saving grace for a source here was a listing in Publisher's Weekly (which no longer exists), but in the last AfD an editor raised a point that e-Sword was only mentioned in passing and this was never refuted. This article is really purely promotional and does not meet the project's notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being rated top on About.com (<– internal link to Wikipedia article) is a pretty high accolade. For "now non-existent sources" please add {{dead link}} tags, and I will retrieve archived pages where possible. I agree that the article has a promotional tone and needs further trimming, but IMHO the topic is encyclopaedic, sufficiently notable, and worth keeping not least to distinguish the subject from the SWORD Project. (Nothing to disclose: I have no personal interest in the software, not even as a user.) – Fayenatic London 11:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content, which is what about.com is, is not a valid source to use when determining notability of a topic. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your authority for classifying the entire site as user generated? Much of it, including this page, appears to be of journalistic quality. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because...that is what about.com, um, is? The writers are not experts, the submissions are not peer-reviewed, it is just ordinary people that submit content, much like the Wikipedia. It is in the same category as IMDB, which we do not accept as a reliable source either. Mary Fairchild, a "Christianity expert" who includes the software on a Top 10 list is not an indicator of notability. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPRODUCT: non-notable, no sources found. One author's opinion on something does not contribute to notability. Esquivalience ^t 01:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not made by a company or organization; so the [WP:NPRODUCT]] argument is not valid. Katoog (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches showed no in-depth coverage of this software showing its notability. The most interesting was the google books search, where there were several mentions, which show that this software is being used. But those citations did not rise to the level of meeting the notability criteria. 25 million downloads is nothing to sneeze at, but that figure is not from an independent source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. e-Sword and his modules are supported by many Churches and it is about BIBLE-software; downloaded 25 million times across 230 nations.

That's a form of WP:VALUABLE. The project does not retain articles on software just because people use it, so, "keep because lots of churches have it" is not a valid AfD rationale. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
supported is not the same as usefull: we are not talking about tools for the garden but about the Bible and study material used for evangelization and education.Katoog (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.