Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MASM32

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. As there are no !votes to keep this article, consensus is clear. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MASM32

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

I deprodded this after finding some brief mentions in books. Nominating here for a more in-depth examination of notability. Beware that this isn't just the 32-bit version of Microsoft's MASM, but a repacking thereof by an independent developer. See [1] and [2] Pcap ping 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The linked source (The Intel microprocessor family book) seems to factually wrong when it calls MASM32 an assembler, so it isn't too reliable. -- spin^control 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources linked are to the primary site, and that site is itself no longer operating. Makes notability questionable. LotLE×talk 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The site is operating, but the administrator has blocked Wikipedia as a referrer after this AfD didn't go the way he liked. It's easily accessible if you use your address bar, rather than clicking links. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject lacks significant coverage by reliable third parties. It is nice to see people coming around at the Open Watcom Assembler deletion discussion too, I was beginning to wonder what the hell was going on today. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JB, it seems the criterion on Wikipedia had changed over time, it was not that long ago that they were happy for you to research and add content but that has changed and a vast amount of material no longer meets the practical criterion for inclusion under current interpretation of notability.
Hutch48 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I meant to add this before, I neither created the article nor do I support it and while I did try and tidy it up a couple of years ago, repeated vandalism that ended up having the page locked by an administrator was a sufficient condition to fully abandon it. I raise no objection whatsoever to the deletion of the page. Hutch48 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2010 (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.