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

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 The writers are not experts, the submissions are not peer-reviewed, it is just ordinary people that submit content, much like the Wikipedia.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]