Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Smalltalk

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. Article has been expanded and the references have been improved - consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Smalltalk

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

PROD was removed but rationale didn't address the issue: as far as I can tell, this is a non-notable application. There are no reliable independent references attesting to it, which isn't surprising given how new it is. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NSOFT criteria. I've not found any reliable sources on a Google search and "unreliable" sources seem to focus on the release announcement (WP:ROUTINE). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - neet to also search under former name: JTalk. This appears to help establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has incorporated the independent InfoQ article by Werner Schuster, and text has been added putting the project in greater context. This project is receiving a great deal of attention in the Smalltalk developer community, and is the most actively worked on implementation of Smalltalk in the web browser. As such it is likely to be influential in significant ways as it is worked out how to develop web applications using Smalltalk on both the server and on the client browser in a single web application framework. If the article is deleted, it will undoubtedly be recreated.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the short InfoQ article is only a single source and JTalk isn't the main topic of it, so is neither significant coverage nor multiple sources as expected for general notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a derivative of the Amber language developed by Amber GMBH. Third-party references can be found, here is a hasty, short and far-from complexe list that should be added to the article to rescue it. leave this to the author:

* [1]

* [2]

* [3]

--GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- comment none of those references say anything about the topic, not least as it is only a few months old while they were written many years ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Agreed. The three blind links are to ancient publications, that have no relation to the particular topic at hand. Two long-ago publications are about Smalltalk generally, and the link to "Amber Language" is derived from ML (programming language), not related to Smalltalk, or Amber Smalltalk. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:GNG is just met here, and as mentioned more citations can be easily found. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is met here, per – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) and more information and inline citations are being added. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do desire to keep the article, as indicated further above. In seeking out additional "journal-like" references, I did a search on google, using quotations to require pages that have all three terms "amber", "smalltalk" and "jtalk", there were about 1900 results, but after inspecting the search -page results for the first 200 items, those results appear likely to all be blog postings (I note, some by respected members of the Smalltalk programming language community), or mail-list traffic and twitter mentions. Besides the InfoQ item, at this moment in time, there appear not likely to be found additional journal-like sources of a published or edited nature that seem to be desired. I have to wonder how many open-source programming projects would disappear from Wikipedia under the potential or apparent standard under discussion. In any case, should the article fail to survive, I predict that in six months time, there will be quite a few more 3rd-party sources.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched for its original name of jtalk. [4] seems like a reliable source with significant coverage. The Google translation is [5] Most coverage of this seems to be in other languages. Harder to sort through. Dream Focus 12:16, 29 October 2011 (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.