Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endeavour Software Project Management (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Endeavour Software Project Management
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by SPA. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage, only routine announcements, incidental mentions and download pages. Haakon (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For significant third-party coverage please check again the references section a blog post by Lee Schlesinger.

http://sourceforge.net/blog/endeavour-to-improve-your-development-process/

Lee Schlesinger is an IT journalist who is the social media specialist for SourceForge.net and who previously served as senior technology editor for ZDNet’s Tech Update pages and executive editor of ZDNet’s Business & Technology pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) — E-cuellar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy delete: recreation of previously deleted material that does not remove the previous problems (Sourceforge blogs are not reliable sources) and unambiguous advertising: an open source solution to manage the creation of large-scale enterprise systems. Yet more software relating to the supervision of computer programmers, with no real notability in the wider world; this falls within the overemphasized portion of Wikipedia's inherent bias. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If the opinion of people with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger is qualified as not been a reliable source and is not relevant to Wikipedia then Wikipedia itself serves no other purpose than fill the void created by the lack of real talent of their self proclaimed editors. Editing a wiki page and yet acting in a totalitarian way pretending to exercise some sort of power requires no skill at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs)

Keep - per WP:WEB, criteria #3 (its software is being distributed by CNET through SourceForge. That criteria alone relieves the need for sources. Normally, WP:ELNO would prohibit a blog as being a reference but as per item 11, the Lee Schlesinger link on SourceForge comes from one of its admins, leeschlesinger. I know his name because I listen to the CNET report daily and he was featured there. Schlesinger is an expert in his field (you can read about him his website. For him to approve the subject at Sourgenet and for CNET to distribute the software meets or exceeds WP:WEB and WP:N. --Ronbo76 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No independent coverage by WP:RS sources. Promotional. Possible WP:G4. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB's criterion 3 covers distribution via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. It particularly rejects trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight. — Rankiri (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CNET meets or exceeds that. --Ronbo76 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. is a blog entry with no editorial oversight that basically copies from a primary source. Compare with . — Rankiri (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:ELNO. Blogs from respected experts in their field are generally allowed in Wikipedia. Now, if this a was a gossip blog or a trivial mention, I would not bring up WP:ELNO twice. --Ronbo76 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, CNET distributes the software which meets that criteria. Oversight is given to software put up for downloads. --Ronbo76 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What does WP:ELNO have to do with anything? I see no actual evidence that the blog's author is a highly regarded expert in his field. Even if he is, the blog is still inadmissible as a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. The first paragraph only quotes from the above primary source. The second paragraph only quotes the developer of the product. The third paragraph paraphrases the standard description of the software, seen on and . The last two paragraphs also repeat the words of the developer. No independent coverage whatsoever.
 * In addition, your case for the subject's notability rests on a single blog entry. Even if the source was admissible (and it's not), it would still not be enough. — Rankiri (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If being on charge of the SourceForge blog, author for Slashdot and having served as a senior technology editor for ZDNet’s Tech Update pages and executive editor of ZDNet’s Business & Technology pages is not considered as an expert in his field then what is being an expert?

Keep How do you classify it as a a blog entry with no editorial oversight if you were not its author? This blog post was produced by an interview composed of 7 questions. Again, if somebody with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger is not respected in Wikipedia then there must be something terribly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs)


 * Comment. In case there are any doubts about WP:WEB #3, SourceForge is the largest freely accessible code repository on the Internet. Aside from the very few basic requirements (submitted projects must be related to software and licensed under an Open Source license, etc), the repository itself has no editorial oversight. See — Rankiri (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The repository is not what is in question here but the blog managed by the prestigious Lee Schlesinger who considered Endeavour Software Project Management notable enough to write about it. And yes! Sourceforge is the largest freely accessible code repository with projects like JBoss, SugarCRM, Compiere, Pentaho and out of the millions of projects in it Endeavour Software Project Management is ranked 475 with 210 weekly downloads.


 * Keep, Keep, Keep! I've been lightly editing on Wikipedia (mostly IT articles) for about 4 years now, and read this page "in question" plus briefly read the arguments for its deletion above, and I find the article quite useful and the software it describes is real (including progress documented by 3rd-party: about 45 write-transactions per month on SourceForge since 2009.04) and (if it really works as it says) the software is also notable (on the List of project management software it is 1 of only 5 entries is Open Source (about 3x more are Proprietary) which has has at least 6 of the 7 key features for project management software -indeed that Wikipedia page (so its entry in Wikipedia) is how I found out about it; and considering that there are 80 entries on this list, it being 1 of 5 is quite notable). Consequently not only do I think this article should be kept, but I am rather angered by the suggestion that it be deleted to the point that it makes me wonder if real reason for such an apparently ridiculous request is to seek new product's failure, as perhaps by one of the about 3x more makers (about 60 all told) of Proprietary variants (again see List of project management software) fearing that their software will (perhaps appropriately) be replaced by newer Open Source versions appearing such as this as this. So in short, here is another vote to "Keep!", by outside observer, also wondering if this seemingly ridiculous request to delete is really from one of the many potential disgruntled incumbent competitors wrongfully upset that these new Open Source versions starting to appear may quite appropriately the take business away. --MBParker (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't "vote", we collect opinions of whether the article complies with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. As such, finding the article useful or the subject real is not a reason to keep. Haakon (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:BIG. Your source is an automatically generated statistical page that doesn't have any actual coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Endeavour Software Project Management is taking the world by surprise by becoming the first Open Source solution that incorporates real project management for software projects by supporting real software artifacts instead of being a simple task based solution that attempts to be a jack of all trades for project management. More than than 100 downloads a day also 12 independent user reviews who give a 100% thumbs upand a growing user base community worldwide are statement of the hard work and real talent behind this effort. Make no mistake, Endeavour Software Project Management is not an Open Source project that was created overnight, many programming hours and countless design changes were put in to creating a real world software project management solution that is here to stay. Just like 7-Zip the Open Source alternative that replaced Winzip the fact that may not have enough actual coverage does not mean that it does not exist or that it is vaporware —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's awesome for your project, and I mean that. I'm a big free software proponent. But all of this is besides the point and matters for nothing in this context. The article needs to cite sources showing significant coverage in reliable third-party publications. That is all. Haakon (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you pay close attention several projects that list what you call "significant coverage in reliable third-party publications" is nothing else than articles written by the developers themselves in websites other than the project's. I could go ahead and do that or keep dedicating my time to provide a true high quality software project management solution.Plus in your List of project management software are several projects of less importance listed that have been labeled as lacking "significant coverage" and yet those have not been marked for deletion. I could cite Concerto_(software), Contactizer and InLoox to mention only a few and you even list a defunct one SharpForge. Where is Wikipedia's impartiality on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I share your suspicion that a several of the articles should not exist. Contactizer is not among them, as it has already been nominated for deletion and kept. However, just because other non-notable products have articles, does not mean a suspension of guidelines for all articles; it simply means nobody has nominated them for deletion yet. See WP:OSE. Haakon (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Contactizer completely lacks what you call "significant coverage in reliable third-party publications". How did you established its notability then? Also the way it is written looks completely like an advertising instead of serving informational purposes which if I'm correct it is what Wikipedia claims is all about. Yes, several articles should not exist and yet they do! You are nominating Endeavour for deletion which people with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger consider notable and leaving many that should not exist up!. Then where is Wikipedia's impartiality?E-cuellar (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In its AfD, this was pointed out: "Macworld, Macworld, Network World has coverage. This review of a competing product is measuring it up against Contactizer which is indicative of a major product in a market space." Can the same be said for your product? Haakon (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect! I will then ignore all the positive feedback and requests for features that Endeavour has been receiving and instead of working hard in developing a top quality product I will redirect my efforts in running a marketing campaign by sending request for reviews and a press releases to Macworld as well as Network World. Surely this will give me what you call "significant coverage in reliable third-party publications". However in the meantime I will invite you to download and compare Contactizer vs Endeavour by yourself and form your own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, do that. Advertisement is important, not just coding. In the mean time, your article will be deleted from Wikipedia as failing our inclusion criteria. Pcap ping  20:33, 19 April 2010 (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.