Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enduro.js

Source: 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enduro.js

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)[reply]

  • Comment, noticed this at
    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)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Fails
    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)[reply
    ]
  • 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)[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.