Deletion of SwordSearcher

Comment: you raise some valid points but please keep in mind , 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BibleTime_%282nd_nomination%29|have been bundled before with absolutely no drama. They're related in that they're relatively non-notable (and for the same reason) software. '''TRAVELLINGCARI
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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  and , neither of which any of these appear to meet. '''TRAVELLINGCARI
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:CORP)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: unfortunately ghits!notability. They require |reliable source coverage to establish that, none of these have that. Per  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  '''TRAVELLINGCARI
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BUNDLE||WP:N)