Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolphin 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Smalltalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete lack of independent coverage. I have only found in-house productions, republishings of those in blogs, and passing mentions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC) see below --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Smalltalk. While there's probably not enough sources to make it notable, there are enough academic sources found in Google Scholar to grant it a mention in the Smalltalk article (there's already one) and a redirect. MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::Sure, fair enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Agree with MarioGom --- has some academic mentions but not enough for its own article.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - found lots of stuff using the Google Books and Google Scholar links at the top of this page, including this book, The Dolphin Smalltalk Companion. I've added several useful refs (all are good but some white papers don't contribute to notability). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That book is has a valid publisher, and some of the papers do indeed go sufficiently beyond passing mentions to constitute good sources. It's not a "speedy keep" (that is not a synonym for "I emphatically think so"), but I retract my opposition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, my "speedy keep" had more to do with my frustration the obvious lack of a WP:BEFORE. I spent all of 60 seconds to turn up a plethora of potential refs. This sort of nomination wastes editors' time that's better spent on other stuff. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per established convention, software usually gets an article if its under activie development and this is Smalltalk. I think it is more than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources added by A. B. and a trout slap for Clenpr. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on sigcov found by A. B. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2025 (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.