Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kojo (programming language)


 * 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; merge with Scala (programming language) possible. This was not a great discussion, but vox populii est vox dei. Shii (tock) 15:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Kojo (programming language)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all primary. I was unable to find any suitable sources by Googling. It's possible the subject may become notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Msnicki (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The author of Kojo here. Kojo is a promising open-source learning environment for children that is used worldwide. I have some links on this page: http://wiki.kogics.net/kojo-world - which might help to establish notabilty. Also, please note that people I did not know added Kojo information to Wikipedia in the first place - in the two articles where this information exists: the Kojo article itself, and the Educational programming languages article. That might itself be considered an argument in favor of notability! (The Kojo article is currently out of date. If it remains on Wikipedia, I'll update it) Lalit.ash.pant (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ( t  •  c ) 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Merge/Delete - As far as i can tell this programming language is an offshoot from Scala (programming language). Because it is obviously not yet noteable enough to have its own page it could be merged with the page for Scala which seems to be more built up and is not being disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatmark (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Kojo is not a programming language itself. It's a (computer programming based) learning environment for children, in the form of a software application, that uses the Scala Language. So maybe the Kojo article needs to be called Kojo_(software). Lalit.ash.pant (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oluies (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say it is a DSL based on Scala, especially since it has added pedagogical tools and also translations of the DSLs to other languages than english (Swedish?). Professor Björn Regnell writes (translation) "Kojo is the best tool, with a low barrier of entry,  I have seen for making real text based programming available for children, that is also  usable all the way up to university level"


 * At AfD, the only issue we consider is WP:NOTABILITY, which has a more technical meaning here than in ordinary conversation. Here, it's not enough that something seems noteworthy but that multiple WP:RELIABLE WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY sources have actually taken note.  Each of those words is significant.  Different editors will interpret the guidelines differently but my rule of thumb to establish notability is on the order of a couple 1000-word articles in established publications by authors having no connection to the subject .  Often, the difference between seems notable and sources have taken note is just a matter of time.  If the sources aren't there now because the subject is quite new, perhaps they will be in a month or so, in which case the article can be reinstated without prejudice .  That's exactly what happened recently  with Julia.  Another option if the outcome is delete is to request WP:Userfication so you or others can continue to work on the article in user space while you search for new sources.   Msnicki (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete I looked for secondary sources and found a few. the Odersky news piece mentioned in the article is only semi-independent, being coauthored by the creator of Kojo. The software has made it onto lists of Best Free Ways to Learn Programming and of Learning Scala; these are independent, and the second looks reliable, but neither is in-depth. My impression is that this software is up and coming and could easily become notable in time, like the Scratch (programming language). But right now, it is WP:TOOSOON, there just hasn't been enough time for the press and/or academics to make note of it. Regretfully, the article cannot stand. I recommend either merging a summary to Educational programming languages or deletion with no prejudice to recreation when multiple reliable sources become available. Sorry, --Mark viking (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or per WP:PAGEDECIDE, coverage at ReadWrite and techsupportalert and scala-lang.org show notability. Diego (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep: Erring on the side of caution here, I'm opining that the ReadWrite article taken along with the other CITEs mentioned here meet GNG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The ReadWrite article is WP:PRIMARY and not helpful in establishing notability. From that article: "this post was co-authored by Lalit Pant, the creator of Kojo ."  Msnicki (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And Einstein authored a lot of articles we quote all the time. At issue is not the author, but the source. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work that way. (a) Einstein did not write this and (b) even if he had, if he was writing about his own work, it would not count toward establishing notability. See my comments above.  You cannot make your own work notable by writing about it yourself, no matter how wonderfully you write.  The essence of notability is that others must take note.  Please read the guidelines re: WP:Notability and WP:PRIMARY sources.  Msnicki (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You have inverted my argument. The question is solely whether or not the source meets the requirements for GNG. If it does, then the author of the work is of little consequence. My example was to illustrate that it is the source we consider when citing, not the author. I'd be perfectly happy to entertain arguments on SELF if you feed RW is a vanity press, or that you don't consider RW to meet the needs of GNG. But just because the author of an article is involved doesn't address its NOTE. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. At AfD, no one cares about your "argument" if the source consists of the author writing about his own work.  Under the guidelines, to establish notability takes sources that are independent of the subject.  Since Pant was a co-author of the article, it does not contribute toward satisfying WP:GNG.  This is black letter and the reason you need to stop arguing and read the guidelines first.  Msnicki (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So, then, you are saying that ReadWrite is not suitable for GNG. Is that correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm saying this article in RW isn't suitable for establishing notability of Kojo. From WP:GNG, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources".  This article isn't WP:SECONDARY, it's primary.  It could have been a fully acceptable source if only Pant hadn't been a co-author.  The publication appears reliable  RW appears to be a reliable publication and the article is certainly long enough and it's undeniably about Kojo (i.e., it's not just a mention in an article about something else.)  The sole problem (but this is all that matters at AfD) is that it is WP:PRIMARY by virtue of the fact that it consists of Pant writing about his own work.  That makes it unhelpful in establishing notability.  Msnicki (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * keep WTF is it with Msnicki? "If I've never heard of it, it doesn't exist" yet again. I know you claim to live near Seattle, but not everything is either Microsoft or unimportant. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy, is this necessary or helpful? Or is this non-guidelines-based strawman argument just one more gratuitously nasty and completely ad hominem example of why no one likes you or cares what you think?  Msnicki (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2013 (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.