Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (2nd 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 Keep, I'd recommend deleting all non-encyclopaedic content and material not referenced to reliable sources. This will reduce the present article to a reasonably good stub. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword (2nd nomination)[edit]

This has been AfDed and closed as delete twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) in 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword in 2004 (although never deleted)) and has been deleted thrice). It was also bundled as a part of a larger AfD that was closed as "Keep as bundled. I would recommend that individual articles are nominated by themselves, as some may have slipped through the cracks."

The current article is nothing but an ad/how to/feature guide which would not be a problem if it could be improved but there appear to be a lack of non-trivial sources. There are vague claims to notability made at AfD but the article remains sourced almost wholly from its own website. There is no evidence from its history and RS coverage that this article has the potential to be anything encyclopedic. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep, weakly. A relatively minor case for notability is made out in this article, which cites independent reviews, including one in Publisher's Weekly. Yes, there is a lot of how-to stuff and promotional crowing in the article; that's a case for editing, not deletion. This particular package meets the "heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test, even though I still prefer my old Online Bible for DOS. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Man. It keeps on looking like it will establish notability through independent sources, but keeps on not quite making it. The reference from publisher's weekly only mentions the product in passing as inspiration for another product. All the pocketpc magazine references are merely nominations/finalist, not winners. Remaining sources are self-published, or reviews from organizations that are so specific that reviewing a product merely establishes it's realm, not it's notability. If appropriate sources are uncovered I'll happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More copies of this program have been distributed, than have been distributed/sold by any other Bible Study Program. (The number of downloads per year is almost equal to the total number of units sold/distributed by any single competitor, in the entire history of the competitor.) The e-Sword license prohibits distribution within a commercial context, and further mandates that all distribution be gratis. One consequence is that market research reports in the industry omit this program. (Marketshare is measured as a percentage of revenue. If revenue is zero, then market share is zero, regardless of the number of copies distributed/used.) [BTW, this is the third AfD for e-Sword, excluding the two AfDs where it was bundled with other articles.]jonathon (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's the third, as I said in the nom, This has been AfDed and closed as delete twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) in 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword in 2004 (although never deleted)) and has been deleted thrice).. Re your comment: One consequence is that market research reports in the industry omit this program. unfortunately notability needs RS coverage. Number downloaded and or otherwise distributed doesn't necessarily show that. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/clarification: This article has previously been submitted for AfD on five separate occasions. Three times as an individual article, and twice as part of a bundle. This is the sixth time for it to go down the AfD track.jonathon (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where's the second bundle? I must have missed that one. I only see one where the outcome was keep, it's been deleted three times as well. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was before the 2006 AdF. I just saw that the December 2007 AdF was not correctly submitted, so I shouldn't have counted it.jonathon (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"The current article is nothing but an ad/how to/feature guide " I disagree, it does not read like an ad to me at all. This is a significant piece of software with millions of downloads. I don't see the entry as all that substantially different from entries for other significant software (I looked at the 'Microsoft word' entry for example). I don't see a good reason to delete the entry, edit it if you want... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.35.228 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — 71.123.35.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep"Article currently contains two links to independent, reliable sources. While the article is over long and could use some work, it does meet the notability requirements. Google News, while a great first step towards research, is not the only one. Searching Google finds a decent amount of references in articles in mainstream Christian publications. Iarann (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improving, but so do the majority of others here; that isn't an argument for deletion. As to notability, TravellingCari's dismissal of jonathon's argument is misleading. The number of downloads does tend to imply notability; look at OpenOffice.org for an example of how free software market share is hard to come by, so that the distributer's own numbers are taken. In addition, the deletion has been turned down or reversed however many times it is, and that in itself is an argument for notability ~ if it weren't notable, the previous deletions would have succeeded or stuck. Cheers, Lindsay 09:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Re: In addition, the deletion has been turned down or reversed however many times it is, and that in itself is an argument for notability ~ if it weren't notable, the previous deletions would have succeeded or stuck. WHere has it been reversed or overturned? I don't see any evidence for anything other than its been re-created a number of times? Being deleted three times says a lot. And while it's an essay, I suggest you have a look at WP:BIG, including A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. It's something to keep in mind, the latter are still lacking in terms of non-trivial coverage. Also while it's software and not wholly a website, this portion of WP:WEB is worth keeping in mind, Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A synopsis of why the article was previously deleted can be found on the talk page of the article.(Note: WP:SOFTWARE no longer points to the page the lists the criteria that software must meet, for it to be notable.) jonathon (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHere has it been reversed or overturned? I don't see any evidence for anything other than its been re-created a number of times? I guess i was meaning that the recreation itself is an indication that some people obviously consider it meets the notabilty level. And should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance is exactly what i meant by [t]he article needs improving. It's on the road, just not there yet. Cheers, Lindsay 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re-creation doesn't mean it's notable per Wikipedia's standards, it means that people don't read the screen that asks if you want to re-create a deleted article . Repeated recreation sometimes leads to artiles being protected against re-creation, not kept by default, although salting is unlikely here. As for it being 'on the road', there's no evidence of active work and no evidence that it's notable, therefore improvments are not likely to have a difference. The need to rely almost exclusively on its own site is not a sign that it has reliable source coverage _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i understand. It simply seems odd to me that a product with X number of users, where X is some relatively large number, is not notable simply because it's a popular product in a small niche. Still, that's a point for a different forum, and i won't argue it here. In the interests of disclosure, i ought to point out that i use the product, that's how i happened to end up with it on my watchlist; but i'm certainly not wedded to the article, i'm not even sure i've ever edited it, and won't complain if consensus it to delete. I argue no longer. I am silent. I stop typing. The end...Cheers, Lindsay 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2004, the size of the userbase was one of the factors that determined notability for software. The software with the largest userbase was automatically deemed to be notable. jonathon (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, agree. It keeps on looking like it will establish notability through independent sources, but keeps on not quite making it. The reference from publisher's weekly only mentions the product in passing as inspiration for another product. All the pocketpc magazine references are merely nominations/finalist, not winners. Remaining sources are self-published, or reviews from organizations that are so specific that reviewing a product merely establishes it's realm, not it's notability. If appropriate sources are uncovered I'll happily change my vote. -Linestools (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes the number of downloads is self published, but that is going to apply to any downloaded software. In the end there are sufficient sources for this. Article needs serious clean up, but that is not a reason to delete --T-rex 17:09, 28 June 2008 (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.