Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endeavour Software Project Management
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 as no coverage satisfying our inclusion criteria has been uncovered. Skomorokh 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endeavour Software Project Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN software. Unable to find any reliable, third party sources about the subject (though the name of the software doesn't help matters) TheWeakWilled 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Endeavour is a valid Source Forge Open Source project. What other "third party sources" on the subject are necesary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ones that indicate that the software is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. ... discospinster talk 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, more from the "enterprise management" spam engine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NotInherent: W does have some catagories that create a presumption of notability that is difficult if not impossible to rebutt. For example, local licensed broascast stations apparently are notable for their drive time DJ's and TV shirt give aways. Sourceforge itself may be notable as would many book publishers but that does not make every book or author notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2009 (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.
