Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enduro.js
- 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Enduro.js (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I PRODed this in August but one user, who I presume is from the company perhaps, contested saying "Downloaded 10,000 times a month", but searches once again found nothing of genuine substance and Wikipedia is not a software listing as our policy WP:NOT states, so there's no automatic inheritance for an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment, noticed this at WP:REFUND, and tried to search for WP:RS that mentioned this open source project. Unfortunately, there are a lot of race-dirtbike-related websites that use javascript, so (enduro AND javascript) types of searches produce 7m false-positive hits. Searching with the creator's name produces seven hits, by contrast, but for an open source project typically the creator's name is not always mentioned in "product" reviews. So what I will say, for anybody that knows something about Enduro.js and the creators/developers, please listen, what wikipedia requires is simple. To help stop the Enduro.js article from being deleted, please provide a list of URLs, pointing to detailed in-depth factual articles specifically talking about Enduro.js for multiple paragraphs, which are published in well-known newspapers / book-publishers / scientific journals / deadtree technology magazines / television newscasts. Which means not the endurojs.com website, not slant.co in Colombia, not facebook, not youtube, not blogs, not wordpress, not github, not alexa, not download counts, not client testimonials, not logical arguments from first principles. The only thing that matters is *coverage* in respected fact-checking reliable publications, which means newspapers/books/academia/magazines/newsmedia, and it has to be *detailed* coverage specifically *about* Enduro.js and/or the creator, as much as possible. See WP:GOLDENRULE for what I'm talking about here, that is the only thing that will help. If the project is too new to have received such coverage in the media and academia, then it is WP:TOOSOON for the wikipedia article on Enduro.js to be written, and it can be moved to Draft:Enduro.js until such coverage (detailed in-depth by well-known highly-respected reliable publishers) has been achieved. Hope this clarifies 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, WP:GNG and WP:NOT applies. Article initially deleted 16 August 2016 per Expired PROD, "concern was: Nothing at all actually suggestive of substance for its convincing notability, searches noticeably found nothing." Article was "Restored" five months later on 26 January 2017. Article has the same problems as before. Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Number of downloads is not a criteria for notability. Strong COI issue- article creator appears to be the developer of product. See: "Gottwik/GottwikWiki". CBS527Talk 02:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Complete absence of reliable sources, appears to be promotional in nature. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:35, 3 February 2017 (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.