Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There are no reliable sources. In fact, there are no sources at all. Please feel free to re-create an article that has actual sources. What we have now is an advertisement. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Sword

E-Sword (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable software product, makes no attempt to pass WP:SOFTWARE. Demiurge 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment there's a previous AfD from 2004 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword; the result was "delete" but there's no corresponding entry in the deletion log so I'm resubmitting it rather than speedying it. Demiurge 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply I am one of 4,000,000 users of e-sword and I find it to be a very helpful program with no computer viruses. People pay money for software like this and Rick Meyers (the software author) gives it away for free -- no strings attached. How can a FREE program with 4 million users not be notable? User: openheaven November 24, 2006

  • Reply: Likewise. I probably don't hold the same beliefs as Rick Meyers, but he has done an excellent job on this piece of software. It's worth keeping this article on Wikipedia. I don't understand the wish of Demiurge to delete this article. There's no real argument in the request. Is there some other agenda? --MaxHund 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: I can agree that in 2004 this program may not have been noteworthy enough to merit an article here, however I do not believe that is still the case. In the past two years E-sword has escalated in functionality and popularity to the point that it is now relatively uncontested as the most useful free offline Bible study resource for the PC. I found this article to be very informative, and it directed me toward several resources that quite improved the functionality of my copy of E-sword. I think an E-sword page here on wikipedia is every bit as relevant as pages about some old videogames such as Shadowcaster, or Mind_Walker. I think at the very least this program is not unimportant enough to merit deletion. Opusfalse 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I also have found e-Sword to be a useful program, and came to Wikipedia for an article which I hoped would tell me about possible alternatives/competitors, and maybe for some views of the quality of some of the modules. The article could be improved, particularly in this first point, but was surprised at the notion that the page might be deleted. Please keep it. Michael
I haven't looked into the number of reviews of e-sword, but I would be extremely surprised if it did not clearly meet the guidelines for notability, as it has a well established group of users - the 4 million quoted above is just the start. For example, I have installed it on all of my family's computers, and several of my friends'. If it was only downloaded once (by me), and as there is no way to register or anything, who's counted all of them? Alister
  • Keep - E-Sword is notable as an extremely flexible and open framework for studying and comparing Bibles, concordances, and many other types of reference materials. It is rather unique in that it plays very well with many different file formats. Perhaps this could be brought out in the article more, but without making it sound like advertising copy. As User:openheaven pointed out, there have been over 4,000,000 downloads. --Willscrlt 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per KarneskyDGG 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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.