Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwordSearcher

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 as bundled. I would recommend that individual articles are nominated by themselves, as some may have slipped through the cracks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SwordSearcher

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BibleTime (2nd nomination), which were speedied as re-created material, however per the closing admin, these do not appear to be. However they suffer from the same issues so I'm bundling again as a part of an effort to get notability consensus as a means to see if a category or article is needed. All of these have copious ghits that are howtos, forum discussions, blogs and mailing list. RS issues are raised on an individual basis next to each nom:

ETA: this one has apparently been deleted before albeit more than a year ago. Appears to still have the same issues TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of others on the list that I didn't include because on the surface, they appear as if they could be notable. If anyone feels different adn wants to bundle, go right ahead. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know why the closing admin before didn't do it. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete - its had millions of downloads, and there are far more unnotable pages on WP that should be dealth with first.

DarthSidious (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

Keep No reason to delete - "some" of these are notable and the bundle idea is also ill advised. E-Sword particularly is used by many, many thousands. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, used by thousands!notability and other poor articles existing is not a valid reason for keep. Bundling is perfectly acceptable for articles who are up for deletion for the same reason rather than flooding AfD. Please note that the two above are involved with the article and may have a COI TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The problem with submitting a mass deletion is that each article has to be defended, or else all are deleted.
- Swordsearcher: Shareware:
- WORDsearch: commercial: This was one of the first, if not first commercial Bible Study Software vendor. The article needs a major rewrite.
- E-Sword: Gratis/freeware: This is the most popular Bible Study Software in history.
- MacSword: GNU GPL: http://www.cmug.org/articles/Update11-06.html and http://macministry.org/Software/Software.html provide a synopsis of the state of Bible Study software for Macintosh.
- Online Bible: Article needs a rewrite. This is one of the early gratis bible study programs. (Most public domain material in bible study software traces its origins to this source.)
- GnomeSword:GNU GPL: This is included in Ubuntu Christian Edition. It is included in the repository of at least half a dozen Linux distributions.
- The CrossWire Bible Society: This organization is extremely publicity shy. They are also extremely reticent about what they do. This article should be rewritten to describe the front ends to their API. (JSword, BibleTime, GnomeSword, MacSword.)
- Blue Letter Bible: Website: This was one of the early websites for Bible Study. jonathon (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, none of which meet notability guidelines. Being new, early, commercial or shareware!notability. They require reliable source coverage to establish that, none of these have that. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this kind of bundling is simply wrong. FWIW the google search suggesting lack of notability of Crosswire Bible Society is grossly misleading. Look at this one: [1]. Gnomesword and Bibletime are in every big Linux distribution, e-sword has a huge world of external modules and the rest has been discussed above by the editor above Refdoc (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, unfortunately ghits!notability. They require reliable source coverage to establish that, none of these have that. Per WP:BUNDLE there is absolutely nothing wrong with bundling related items for discussion. It doesn't mean the same action has to be taken on each, but currently they all fail WP:N TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There can be little doubt that software use for Bible study is a weighty enough subject for WP. Within the more popular/semi-academic part of the software BibleWorks, e-Sword and The CrossWire Bible Society with its various programmes (which indeed should be merged into The Sword Project) are the most relevant of their respective classes - proprietary, shareware and F/LOSS. The evidence is there and has been submitted. Refdoc (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment so merge the lot of it into Bible software and discuss them there since none have been proven to be independently notable via reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment you have a bizarre notion of notability. Once we have established that Bible Software is a matter worth writing an article about, the evidence available is perfectly sufficient to describe these programmes as most important of the the relevant catagegories and expand on them with an article. Notability is not an absolute measure, but needs to be seen in the context of the overall matter. Wikipedia is no paper. Refdoc (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Response Indeed I do, I define notability by Wikipedia's own guidelines. Bizarre isn't it. Wikipedia isn't paper but that doesn't mean everything has an article. There need to be standards and those include notability, including WP:WEB and WP:CORP, neither of which any of these appear to meet. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been far smarter to suggest merging The Sword Project, The CrossWire Bible Society, GnomeSword, BibleTime, JSword, and their other front ends into one article. Before it was deleted, Notability guidelines for Software included "being part of a major distro". As such, the Sword Project front ends do qualify as "notable". Their publicity shy attitude has hurt them in getting reviews. None the less, their software has been reviewed in Christian Computing, amongst other media outlets. (They give the other person all of the credit, even if the other person did nothing,but accept the glory.) It is the only Bible Software that is distributed under the GNU GPL. The net effect of that, is that it won't show up in market research reports of Bible Study Software.(These reports only look at commercial distribution, and since these programs are gratis, even if 10,000,000,000 copies had been distributed, they would have zero marketshare.)jonathon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the old software notability guidelines, the product with the highest number of distributed copies in its category, was accepted as being "notable". e-Sword has had 7,000,000+ downloads to date, with roughly 5,000 CDs distributed each month in the Philippines alone. By comparison QuickVerse has distributed 1,000,000 units since its inception, and Logos Research Systems has distributed roughly 2,000,000 units since 1986. I'll also point out that e-Sword was deleted for failing to adhere to WP:WEB requirements, without explaining why software has to have the same notability requirements as a website. It did pass the notability requirements for software. The previous AfD was because it was an add, but that AfD was never acted on.Furthermore, when it was renominated, the nominator stated that it was no longer an add.jonathon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst a poor article is not a reason to keep, it is not a reason to delete. Rather, the appropriate action is to rewrite the article so that it is a quality article. Something that these ten could easily become, if an editor were to do so. (Budget roughly 100 hours to research each article.1,000 hours for all ten articles.)jonathon (talk)

Unbundle: The problem with submitting a mass deletion in this case is that they're hardly related and discussion of their deletion is thus necessarily confused and convoluted. It's also pretty clear, from WP:BUNDLE that bundling is inappropriate in this context as none of the given examples are reasonably similar to the situation here (and to quote the guidelines, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't). For the most part, these are disparate products and organizations, whose sole connection is that they pertain to the same software genre or in some cases have similar names. That is insufficient grounds for bundling, per WP:BUNDLE. So, to reiterate the statement of Refdoc, "this kind of bundling is simply wrong." -- While ghits != notability, neither do Google News hits == notability or their lack and neither are ghits inherently not reliable sources. Haphazard Google News searches are especially unhelpful. Just do a search for reviews associated with these terms and you should get plenty of hits on most of them.
- Swordsearcher: Delete-- genuinely no RSes out there that I find.
- WORDsearch: Keep-- needs rewrite desperately, but an adequately notable company. Other reasonable GN searches, considering the merger a few years ago between WORDsearch & Epiphany Software: Bible Explorer 3, Epiphany Software. Some other pertinent RS articles: 1, 2, etc.
- E-Sword: Keep-- The article itself cites sufficient RSes to establish its own notability. QED. If you feel the need for more, Google some reviews, search Google News and drop the hyphen, etc.--you know, standard Google usage stuff.
- MacSword: Redirect to The SWORD Project. (Sort of a no-brainer. Should have been the original suggestion, as with the other two below.)
- Online Bible: Keep-- plenty of articles, howtos, reviews online--the article should really cite more than just the one. Unfortunately, Online Bible's true notability lies largely in the past, especially the 90's, where it wouldn't show up in a Google News search. So, I guess if notability is only temporary, then this article should be deleted.
- GnomeSword: Redirect to The SWORD Project.
- The CrossWire Bible Society: Redirect to The SWORD Project.
- Blue Letter Bible: Delete-- genuinely no RSes out there that I find.
- Bible Reader for Palm: Merge/Redirect with Palm Bible Plus. The latter is more notable (IMO) & has a wider user base (in my estimation).
- Palm Bible Plus: Keep-- Fairly notable. Extensive review. Brief review. Both this and the previous software get occasional mentions in Mobile Ministry Magazine. Etc. --Oskilla (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment you raise some valid points but please keep in mind WP:RS, E-Sword is sourced through its own website and documentation, neither of which are considered reliable per the guidelines. That's the issue with a number of other sources, including howtos, forums and blogs, they do not meet the reliable source guidelines, which is why ghits!notability. And a note on bundle, similar articles been bundled before with absolutely no drama. They're related in that they're relatively non-notable (and for the same reason) software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not opposed to unbundling these AfDs, although I don't see what harm bundling the majority of these articles has done. However, if we are to unbundle these articles, "point of reference" links should be placed in this series of AfDs so users may cross reference each of the articles together for easier consensus. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't intend to unbundle at this point unless an admin or an uninvolved editor says it's too hard to judge them. I don't see anything wrong with the point by point and it saves copy/pasting the same rationale in a number places, as has been done/been needed to do across the recent student union AfDs. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:49, 11 March 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.