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 keep. Tone 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JULES[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Poor references. Mostly primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 19:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor article, but I believe the sources available on google are sufficient for inclusion. Natureium (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you be able to provide some example independant sources? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing of substance to support independent notability for our subject strong enough for it to merit an article here. Claims that "there must be sources" or simply "sources exist" are not enough. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not excited about keeping this substub but there are hundreds of relevant hits on ProQuest and Google Scholar, some of which are clearly quite substantial. Haukur (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the first page of google scholar, I found two sources, both of which were studies or analysis relating to JULES, but contained decent explanations of what JULES is. I assume there should be more on the following pages, which should add more content to the article. The real problem here is previous editors who worked on this page not doing more than a google search to look for information. BlacknoseDace (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is 12 years old.. it can be improved ApChrKey ^Talk 23:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is little more than a dictionary definition. The keep !votes suggest the article's age and number of hits it get on Google should merit keeping it but that doesn't really help unless someone is willing to add reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just went in and added sources per what was suggested above. To be honest, there's a *ton* of scientific studies that cite this thing (and I cherry picked some that seemed to have it be a main focus) but I have basically zero idea if this helps with notability or not-- this is completely outside my area of expertise, so defer to other folks here. Nomader (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have made some small improvements. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work done to rescue it so far, seems reasonable to keep as a stub, Sadads (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2020 (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.