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. One^{two^three...} 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScratchR[edit]

Non-notable social media platform. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources talking about this other than those on the MIT website. It fails WP:N. Tim meh ! 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable social media platform??? Oh please:

1) http://ltee.org/uploads/cscl2009/paper251.pdf 2) http://www.aec.at/index_de.php (at http://andresmh.emurse.com/ it says "Received honorary mention at the Ars Electronica Prix 2008") 3) Do you know who is Resnick??? 4) Do you know what is Scratch? Have you seen http://scratch.mit.edu and how many users it has? (it's powered by ScratchR) Just because many people confuse ScratchR (the web platform) with Scratch itself, it doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't give the ScratchR platform due credit!!!Tziortzioti (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources you have provided are trivial mentions, if there is even a mention at all. Notability not established. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Prix Electronica 2008 is trivial mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.19.130 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that Scratch entry in Wikipedia won't be complete without mentioning ScratchR, since a big part of the power of Scratch is its social media platform. But if you feel you know better about educational software, go ahead, I'm not going to spend any more of my time contributing here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.19.130 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm reserving judgement until I know more, but [1] does not appear to be a trivial mention, but it is connected to MIT, so it really can't be used to meet notability requirements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to be any serious coverage independent of MIT. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon further review, I can find nothing that proves notability. The sources available are either first-party or unreliable, and thus WP:GNG is not met. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (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.