Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sword Project


 * 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 no consensus to delete. A merge could be discussed further but AfD is not needed for that. W.marsh 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sword Project


Obscure software product, does not assert notability in any way. Demiurge 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating these subprojects for the same reason: Demiurge 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * MacSword
 * GnomeSword
 * BibleTime
 * LcdBible


 * The Sword API project is quite notable in that it may in fact be the primary and only Open Source Bible software and library in English (if not any language). So, it would be foolish to actually have no article about it whatsoever. The question is this: Should all of the information about the API, Frontends, derivative projects (JSword), etc., be condensed into the Crosswire Society page, or should this project page remain, and this information (not pertaining to the society itself, but their projects) be grouped here. This is the real question, not the actual deletion of all information about this notable project. Another factor in the notability of this project is that it is licensed under the GPL (last time I checked), and is now beginning to appear either with many GNU/Linux distributions (bundled with) OR is available in almost all repositories. I personally will take it upon myself to expand and tighten the articles pertaining to Crosswire and their Sword API project (along with related information on the Frontends, etc.). However, we must decide if it should all be placed into the primary Crosswire article, or kept here. I posit that it should all be placed under the Crossire article, under a heading: ==Projects==  or something similar StudiosusTheologiae 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * delete all, unless notability is established via third-party sources. A piece of software isn't notable just because it exists, but only if people are using it and talking about it.  I see no evidence of that in this article. Nandesuka 14:29, 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,


 * Keep perhaps another instance of deleting the unfamiliar.ST, perhaps yu could wuickly add some content.DGG 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but that's an example of a bad rationale that has no basis in policy. A good rationale, in contrast, would address the above assertion that there is a lack of sources independent of the subject and its authors/creators, by citing some.  WP:SOFTWARE are the criteria to satisfy, and Citing sources explains how to cite sources. Uncle G 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "This software is among core products of a notable software developer." This particular developed is notable in it's field, as argued above.DGG 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete While the project is clearly a useful one, Wikipedia is not here to provide a platform for new software to achieve prominence. Become well known, get written up, THEN create an article. Edison 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless third-party reliable sources are added before this AfD is closed, I support deletion per the WP:V policy and the WP:SOFTWARE guideline. Just being the (allegedly) only open-source English-language implementation of something does not make it notable by WP's standards.  Just being another method to access the most-known book does not make it notable by WP's standards.  Barno 18:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but merge all & move to The SWORD Project. This is notable and has received press coverage such as this Syracuse Post-Standard article. It also easily meets the standards for number of users (particularly for a niche application). --Karnesky 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked. It is included in gentoo and FreeBSD & probably most other distros too--this seems like an obvious keep to me.... --Karnesky 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * bibletime has had other unique articles written about it. bibletime and gnomesword are both in gentoo and freebsd.  Thus, I don't know how strongly I feel about merging those two. --Karnesky 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I dislike it when people invoke distributions like Gentoo to "prove" notablity. Gentoo's only qualification is that the source be available and that it compile.  This project also lacks the usual mailing list or forum chatter that most notable projects have.  That said, Linux World News points us to the Ubuntu Christian Edition which highlights GnomeSword (and by extension The Sword Project libraries).  Since the parameters of the special Ubuntu edition implies some editorial control, WP:SOFTWARE probably applies. A look at the Google listing shows that this is a small fish (sorry, pun not intended) in the open soruce pond, but it does appear to be tops in its category. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFTWARE specifically mentions inclusion in FreeBSD as evidence supporting notability. --Karnesky 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - hey, I've used that product before! Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. popcon ranks #7922 for gnomesword and #9256 for bibletime, out of 61426 packages. That would definitely indicate notability. (gnomesword doesn't fall too much from mediawiki1.7, which struggles around at #7521. =) However, I'd still weakly recommend merge afterwards. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all into a new Study Bible software article The Sword Project, or something of that nature. --- RockMFR 07:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: if a merge was completed, the best merge would probably be into The Sword Project, IMHO. I might be wrong though... Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since I am new, and know your attitude towards the opinions of newbies, I shan't state an opinion on this deletion issue. I came here while downloading Bibletime and Sword for Mandriva -- which has used it for some time. I will be watching with interest, because I was planning to write an article on Tepexi de Rodriguez, Puebla, Mexico -- where I am currently living.  It is a small village of no import, except it is world famous among paleontologists because it is one of the top locations for fossils in the world, and it seems disgraceful there is nothing about it on Wikipedia.  I edited for five years a Mensa local newsletter, and certainly understand editing issues. However, to invest the time required to produce an article to your high standards, then have it discussed for total deletion essentially because there are no paleontology professors or students here, would be a tough row to hoe. Better to save my time and let them google for the same material I would be using for the article.  --- irlandes 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for anyone else, but I think new people are what keeps the entire WP project alive.   All you need do to keep your article about Tepexi de Rodriguez from deletion is to make sure it prominently says that it is significant because of the fossils & make sure there are at least two good published references cited to the fact that it is notable. Then just link it to the appropriate palenontology pages, add links from appropriate paleontology pages to it, for example from famous species unearthed there. And I hope you will stay and do some more. DGG 22:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create your article; in all likelihood, it won't be deleted; most small towns are afforded their own articles (e.g., Stormstown, PA). BTW, feel free to vote keep if you'd like on this article, especially if you feel this link was helpful, and the software notable. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with redirects into the The Sword Project. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:35, 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.