Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeroo

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. After three relists, a consensus has not been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing news worthy I could find. Does not meet WP:N JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep: it's an academic tool to teach students how to do object oriented programming, so it's not reviewed in places like CNET or PCMag, but it's mentioned in university websites and academic papers. For example:

http://mrmonline.org/site/category/jeroo/

http://sofia.cs.vt.edu/cs1114-ebooklet/chapter5.html

http://faculty.ist.unomaha.edu/bdorn/papers/FIE03.pdf

Also a few hits on Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?q=jeroo+programming&pws=0&gl=us&biw=1536&bih=764&tbm=bks&sa=X

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see the references brought forward by @WikiLaurent: (who need to sign their !vote still), but think it is not enough to meet our notability guideline. I also don't think that these students come to Wikipedia to learn about this teaching environment and it's audience is therefor too small to generate reliable secondary sourcing, hence to be included in Wikipedia. DeVerm (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've listed above are reliable. Academic papers are reliable and so are third-party published books. Plenty of programming languages have tiny, sometime almost non-existent audience, and might still have an article on Wikipedia. As long as the sources are reliable I see no problem with that. Laurent (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can see it being notable as an academic tool, especially as having a part in a decent number of academic publications/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I come from a software development background and love object oriented programming. That said, for an article on Wikipedia we have guidelines that must be met; in this case, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS are the guidelines that we must hold this article against... and only when it stands up to that we get ground to keep it. DeVerm (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2016 (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.