Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endevor


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Endevor

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm posting this on behalf of, who got stuck during the nomination process. I'm doing so neutrally. (I haven't yet even read the article. Later, perhaps I'll read it and express an opinion on its fate.) I invite Doktor Züm to comment below. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hoary.

Despite being tagged for a decade as needing references, this article has none (the existing two references are pathetic); thus it fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability and WP:No original research. Also, the article is mostly unreadable to the lay reader, so fails WP:Technical: "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." -- Doktor Züm (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I actually understand this article; I used to be a computer programmer on IBM-compatible mainframes. It is, indeed, poorly referenced.  Also, it's a how-to.  Knowing the subject matter, I don't think an article could be written that successfully demonstrates notability (the subject and this class of software are not really notable).  Finally, it would be hard to write this article so that a layperson could understand it--there's too much prior knowledge that would be required.

P.S. The comment above mine also appears to be a "delete" !vote. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm the nominator. I want to explain my thinking here in greater detail.
 * 1) The article can't be saved. There are no reliable sources that I can find. Here are the results from first two pages of a Google search, to give some flavour: 1× unsatisfactory Wikipedia article (I claim); 4× marketing-type websites; 3× tutorials; 2× developer documentation sites (one looks like copyright infringement); 1× blog post; 1× user review forum (very poor); 2x sites that timeout; 2x sites about spelling ("endevor"); 1× long-expired job advert; 1x drinking glasses (same brand name). Good luck getting an encyclopedic article out of that lot. No links to respected press coverage, historical significance, reviews in reliable sources, etc.
 * 2) No one has added citations to this article, nor opposed this nomination, because it can't be done (I believe). No decent references = not verifiable ~= not notable = must be deleted. Simples.
 * 3) No references = must be original research. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Impossibility of rephrasing for a lay readership isn't a valid reason for deletion. (If it were, most maths articles would be doomed.) Neither is prolixity or tedium. But whew, this thing is so prolix and so soporific.... Hoary (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hoary That's fair, and good to know -- and you're right about the math articles.  But I don't think the software is notable,  and also, the article didn't demonstrate notability. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about lack of evidence in the article of notability. As for evidence "out there" of notability, perhaps somebody claiming that the subject is notable would care to point us to some of it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.