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 redirect.

Short version: Consensus says JWASM is not notable and does not merit an article.

Long version: Despite much discussion, it is very clear that the consensus of informed opinion here is that this topic is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Many arguments were proffered as to why the topic was important, but the standard notability threshold of the encyclopaedia is not importance but significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In the absence of a compelling reason to keep an article on a topic of questioned notability, the burden of proof is on the editors wishing to retain the article to provide evidence of such sources, and I do not believe that they have been successful in this case. Although the rough consensus here is to delete the article, the suggestion that the topic be covered in an article of broader scope was well-received, and so rather than deleting the article and forcing editors to go and have it undeleted to include elsewhere, I am boldly redirecting it to Open Watcom Assembler as suggested below.  Skomorokh  21:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JWASM[edit]


JWASM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software product does not appear to be notable. My search failed to find any references apart from the product's primary website and various technical help fora. A previous PROD template was removed without providing any reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Much of the content also appears to duplicate the MASM article. Being "useful" does not satisfy the notability guidelines. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is an discussion about the notability of a subject. Familiarise yourself with How to discuss an AfD before responding. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing no notability with less notability. Should we omit forty or so browsers listed in Template:Web browsers because they are less notable than the main ones?? You don't seem to have a leg to stand on here. -- spincontrol 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing usefulness or future possible notability with notability. Unless you are able to provide adequate appropriate sources, you have no leg to stand on. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In no sense. You have given no indication of lack of notability where it is essential. You have merely argued here that less notability is no notability at all. That is not an argument. You have already shown that there is notability. So the case should be closed and the notice removed. -- spincontrol 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that one day it may be notable, however as we don't have a crytal ball we cannot say one way or another if in future this becomes a notable assembler. Perhaps when it starts getting used in a signficant way if the article is deleted you could take to DRV. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad idea and I'd recommend that the deletion notice be removed ASAP. There was no discussion of the deletion proposal on the talk page. Calls for deletion that make no effort to discuss before the notice is slapped up must not be taken seriously.
OrangeDog, you still don't seem to understand the point of showing the unique conventions of a particular assembler. When you say, "Much of the content also appears to duplicate the MASM article", you don't seem to have looked closely at the subtle but necessary differences. If you cannot see the utility of such information, then you probably don't have much use for assembly programming. -- spincontrol 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place to discuss the deletion. No prior discussion is necessary. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have apparently already alienated an editor here and this stated non-consensus approach is guaranteed to alienate you more. -- spincontrol 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be clarified: "Calls for deletion that make no effort to discuss before the notice is slapped up must not be taken seriously" is missing the point. "The notice" that was "slapped up" is precisely an invitation to take part in a discussion as to whether the article should be deleted. It is not true that there is "no effort to discuss": this here is a discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not recommend that this be done at all. I need to add my voice to the general chorus - this is the place to discuss deletion matters. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are making the claim of lack of notability. Therefore you need to make a case for your assertion. -- spincontrol 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My case is made at the top of this page. You need to prove the opposite. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the little that there was, I already have. Besides, referring to an issue is not making a case. You claim: "My search failed to find any references apart from the product's primary website and various technical help fora." Where do you expect to find the notability of an assembler except in the areas where people deal with assemblers? I'm sorry, the only case you've made is that it is notable where it counts.
You are supposed to have made a case, not suggest the possibility. Please consider the issue in more depth, thank you. -- spincontrol 20:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia policy the onus is on those wishing to retain information to provide evidence of notability. (I also think there are good reasons for this policy, but whether you agree or not we have to work from that policy.) Also, how can one provide evidence of lack of notability? In other words, how can one provide evidence that there is not substantial independent coverage? Surely (1) by looking for such coverage and failing to find it, and (2) by inviting anyone else to find some if they can. OrangeDog has done both of these. If there is a third way I can't think of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to merge the JWASM page with the Microsoft Macro Assembler page is unsound, Microsoft, Sybase and Watcom are distinct commercial entities with different technical and corporate backgrounds and to include JWASM on the MASM page would mislead readers as to the identity of both assemblers. Note also that with the page up and readable that other updates have now been made to it to keep it up to date.
It is a mistake to assume that all assemblers are the same, notational differences, licencing differences, platform and hardware differences etc ... Implimentation of such assumptions if the editors do not have demonstrable experience with assemblers to correctly referencing technical data that applies to each different tool has the net effect that the quality of the Wikipedia article is seriously diminished and that the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of technical data is placed under further pressure. Hutch48 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Notification before starting an AfD is not required. I had read the discussion page (including your incivility there). It is also a mistake to assume that all assemblers are notable. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your desire to delete this page is certainly not transparent. Why is it that after attempting to remove large amounts of the MASM article, you leave it to try to delete the JWASM article? I'd suggest that you assume some good faith here and think that those who've done the work of presenting the information have done so to fill a need. I await your case for lack of notability. As is, I'll be happy to remove the deletion notice ASAP as it is against the consensus. -- spincontrol 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My decision to nominate JWASM is completely independent of my decision to attempt to edit MASM. I simply found the JWASM article as it was linked from MASM. This is not the place to discuss the MASM article. As before, my case for lack of notability is presented at the top of this discussion, i.e. that no reliable independent sources can be found. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing the MASM article, but your change of tack to post a deletion notice on JWASM. As before you have no case. This is a specialist topic and you have shown that in specialist circles JWASM is notable. Would you post a deletion notice say on Endogenous Retroviruses because it is a specialist topic? I'd think not, and neither should you with JWASM. -- spincontrol 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endogenous retroviruses#References lists 11 academic journal citations and 1 news article, among others. That is why I would not nominate it for deletion. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your answer is no, you wouldn't delete it because it is a specialist topic. That however is what you are trying to do with JWASM. It's just that notability is measured differently from an academic topic. -- spincontrol 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor seems to be attributing the quotes they make to OrangeDog. In fact the quotes are from Jj2006, arguing against OrangeDog.JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the Wikipedia specifications for article deletion "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." this in fact has not been the case with the three (3) users who have so far incorrectly tagged the JWASM article, it has been an act of first resort with no consultation, no discussion on the "Discussion" page for JWASM, no consensus with any other person of any known expertise and from users who have no demonstrated expertise in assembler programming.
In particular user OrangeDog has attempted to isolate the current author of JWASM from its historical origin as open source code owned under a Sybase licence where in fact Sybase is a well known software company who purchased the Watcom line of development tool some years ago and made the source code availoable under their own Open Source licence. The names Watcom and Sybase are a sufficient condition to establish notability for a tecynical target like an assembler and it is a mis-representation on the part of user OrangeDog to try and represent the JWASM assembler as a private single ownership work.
Citing again the Wikipedia specifications for article deletion, "If the article is about a specialized field, use the expert-subject tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." This is fact has not been done by any of the three users who have so far tagged the page rendering it useless and unreadable.
It is reasonable to require users who place tags on new articles to actually bother to READ THE RULES and properly comply with them rather than simply slap labels on work that defaces it and renders it as technically useless. Form is no substitute for content and as long as Wikipedia allow non-competent people to tear around technical pages with automated software vandalising the content in violation of the rules, the quality of the articles will be diminished and leave Wikipedia open to further pressure in terms of reliability and relevance of content. Hutch48 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection of JWASM to MASM would naturally be inappropriate because there are notable differences between the two assemblers, as the Usage sections indicate. -- spincontrol 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party sources would include reviews and features in major computing-related publications, citations in news articles or academic journals, appearance in TV or radio documentaries, etc. See WP:GNG and WP:RS for more details. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not answering my rhetorical question: "which third-party sources would you expect other than materials derived from the provider of the assembler?" Assembly language matters are not what one would expect in academic journals, TV or radio documentaries (!?), but you expect them in areas where people who deal with assembly languages congregate and you have shown that it is dealt with there. -- spincontrol 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNU Compiler Collection includes two published book citations, one magazine and two news articles. Microsoft Visual Studio includes multiple citations of notable bloggers and 1843 Google News hits. Even MASM manages [1] and one relevant news hit. JWASM has none of these.
wikt:rhetorical question - obviously... OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Microsoft and the Free Software Foundation both have the resources to have books published. So now you are arguing that organizations that muster finances are privileged on Wikipedia. This argument is one you can use against any other assembler package. The JWASM article is technical material of a specialist nature and you are not looking in the right places, such as assembly language forums. -- spincontrol 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RE: Comments by user decltype who I thank for a constructive addition to the discussion, the complete original source code for all versions of JWASM are cited in the introduction with reference to the authors page of the source being written in portable C and by the Open Source code being available at the authors site. As typical with Open Source code, the annotation is the source code and the derivation and further description is wholly solely and exhaustively contained in the authors source code. There may be a case for additional citation back to the source code but it risks making the page a lot harder to read and may place a requirement for a reader to have to learn portable C to properly understand the assembler notation.
In an area that has yet to be addressed on the page, the JWASM assembler is currently 64 bit capable in a number of platforms and to this extent it ceases to be MASM compatible as MASM is not targetted at any other environment apart from Microsoft Operating Systems. Also specific to the Windows environment ML64.EXE and JWASM deviate in terms of technical capacity and notation. While these updates need to be made to the JWASM page, while it is under threat of deletion it is not worth wasting the effort to further improve the page if it ends up being deleted and until its status is properly resolved there is little reason to improve the page.
Hutch48 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that so far the originator of this latest attempt to delete the JWASM page OrangeDog has continued to avoid the obvious with this page in that it is Open Source software issued under a SyBase licence which alone is sufficient notability as the Watcom name purchased by Sybase and subsequently licenced as Open Source. Isolating the current maintainer/author of JWASM and attempting to represent JWASM as a private project by a single author is a misrepresentation of the facts. The externally published content of the Sybase Open Watcom licence makes this clear. Its Watcom predecessor WASM has been in existence since the early 1990s and JWASM is a direct upgrade/rewrite of WASM to modernise it and make it available for a wider range of platforms.
With the current status of the JWASM page being tagged for deletion after repeated graffiti on the page I would class the page as "DEAD IN THE WATER" and not worth the effort to continue to work on it even though I have about 20 years experience in writing the Microsoft dialect of x86 assembler and with MASSIVE RESOURCES behind me in hundreds of highly qualified and experienced members of the MASM forum coupled with a massive database of technical data in the forum ranging back over 5 years in the current incarnation of the forum, as long as this page and the Microsoft Macro Assembler page are subject to damage by users who have yet to demonstrate any form of expertise, it is a waste of effort to update technical pages that are subject to repeated damage of this type.
I note that the originator of this current deletion attempt OrangeDog has already tried to delete more than half of the content of the MASM page before another member reverted the page so I would suggest that his intent is clear by way of his own actions and the comments he has made on his own talk page in response to to my own questions about his actions, experience and intent.
To address a response from user OrangeDog in relation to notions of conflict of interest because other people in the past have linked to my web site and forum without my permission, I primarily work in Microsoft assembler and run the MASM forum to support x86 style assembler programming. I am not in any way connected with the production of the JWASM assembler and do not use it in my own code production but I do host such a critically important Open Source project at the MASM forum which has been used by the current maintainer to further develop JWASM and interact with its expanding user base and I build the JWASM project from its source code in Microsoft C on a release by release basis to stay up to date with its capacity in the Windows environment.
In accordance with the above mention Wikipedia rules on deletion, I would suggest that people who are not technically competent in this area restrain themselves in terms of damaging these technical pages and obtain the advice of an expert in x86 assembler programming who is both familiar and experience in using the Microsoft assembler in the Windows environment and other experts who are familiar with writing Intel notation x86 assembler for the Linux, BSD and x86 MAC environments. This takes the decision making out of the hands of amateurs and places it where technical articles of this type should be, in the hands of people who actually know enough about it.
Hutch48 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of notability require a reasonable search for references made in good faith according to Wikipedia policy. While the original person who tagged the JWASM article for deletion claims to have done so, it appears not to have been done within the guidelines of Wikipedia but to make the claim that the JWASM project is not notable. Here is a quick smattering of the notability and support for JWASM at an international level. A simple Google search makes the evidence for notability overwhelming. Note multilingual sites with reviews and multiple download sources for JWASM for both the Windows and Linux environments.

There are in fact many many more available in multiple languages.

http://www.freedos.org/cgi-bin/lsm.cgi?mode=lsm&lsm=devel/jwasm.lsm
http://ko.sourceforge.jp/projects/sfnet_jwasm/
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/devel/asm/jwasm/
http://www.rcedir.com/index.php?list=latest
http://www.downloadplex.com/tags/jwasm/Page-1-0-0-0-0.html
https://hermes.opensuse.org/messages/2399877
http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Wasm
http://www.retrovicio.com/programas/cutemouse
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1327211
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Assembly/x86/Assemblers_and_Linkers/
http://www.haker.com.pl/showthread.php?p=123376
http://slashdot.jp/softwaremap.pl?id=325
http://groups.google.am/group/openwatcom.users.c_cpp/browse_thread/thread/bf68e4bfdc4b7a04

Hutch48 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such misinformation is definitely not going to help the notability case of JWASM. Point in case: NASM has been around quite some time, and GAS has been around even longer; both very notable and "legal software for Linux assembly." SpooK (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Elen of the Roads. Don't worry. I'm sure you understand the situation where someone is in the middle of creative activity and another comes along and apparently puts the damper on it. You were following the rules. But when someone creates an article, it is often saved in an intermediate form in order to get the article started. Once started you can go back and set it straight. If you come along and mark the fresh article as a candidate for deletion when the article hasn't been allowed to reach the editor's desired form, you'll probably stimulate a reaction similar to the one you got. What you see is not bad faith. It's a very reasonable reaction of someone relatively new to Wiki-dom. I'd recommend that you wait next time before marking an article for deletion: less than a day doesn't allow the editor to get the article up to scratch. As to verifiability, all the information is available in the annotated materials supplied with the assembler package. It's just rather hard to cite. But you can verify it yourself working through those materials. It's all there. It's good to have people who care about what gets posted on Wiki. We need more people like you. I'd just like to defuse the situation. I don't think you are being attacked and there is no bad faith. It would be good though for Hutch48 to clarify this. -- spincontrol 12:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi spin. I appreciate your attempts to mediate here, and I do understand that Hutch48 is upset that his work is not being appreciated. However, I don't think that Hutch48 understands Wikipedia's notability policy. None of the sources he has provided above(most of which I found) indicate that the topic is notable in Wikipedia terms. I may not work in an area which uses this gadget but I can perfectly well understand the difference between a mention in a bunch of listings that say this is a free clone of some propriatory product, and a couple of sources that say "new breakthrough" "significant development" "has become the product of choice for" or similar indications of notability. I check all unsourced articles when I page patrol, and if I can find a source that gives even some evidence of notability I add it. I would also add that if an article is likely to take some time to compile, creating it in a sandbox is probably the correct way to do it. I would also add that as Wikipedia is not a How To manual, finding reliable sources would have been a better use of time that downloading and evaluating the software, something that comes quite close to being original research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads, while I finally have no deference towards you, I make no apology for having reacted to your original tagging of a new article under 12 hours after it was created as I consider your actions unreasonable within that time frame. The article you tagged took the time to download the JWASM software, build it with the appropriate software, put it through objective testing, trawl through the auhors home page and reference material, detailed search of Wikipedia for compatible articles and then the time to write the article. I came back under 12 hours the next day to do some more work on the article only to find your notice slapped on the page to delete it.

While I don't live in Wikipedia trawling articles to delete I do in fact read the policy of Wikipedia carefully and here specifically the Wikipedia policy as stated on the page with the heading "Wikipedia:Notability" at URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline

In particular I quote the following Wikipedia policy.

Subheading -- Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

(a) it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be.
(b) Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present.
(c) For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

Now I remind you that this IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY I can reasonably expect that editors act in good faith and comply with that stated policy. You have not addressed (a) in terms of whether the article at less than 12 hours old was able to satisfy the notability guidelines, (b) that it was clear from the editing date that the article had just been created and was in early draft form and (c) you have tagged the article as a FIRST RESORT, not the Wikipedia policy of last resort. Acting in good faith is double ended and while I am satisfied that you have not intended the tagging with any form of malice, I also suggest at the best that you were careless in tagging an article that was less than 12 hours old and did not address the published Wikipedia guidelines quoted above.

Hutch48 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog, the reason why statements about your intention are involved is not based on imagination but what you have both said and done. Making reference to the content of your own talk page you cited criteria that was incorrect about the MASM page and after trying to negotiate with you, you deleted over half of the MASM page and further threatened to delete more of it. After another user restored the page you then shifted to the JWASM page and with no consultation whatsoever or any attept at establishing the required consensus you tagged the article for deletion which lead to this page of discussion.

You have been unwilling to address the overwhelming notability issues I have raised in relation to Sybase, its owndership of the Watcom name and code base or the range of support and reference available with a simple Google search and it would appear that you are relying on ignoring the notability of an old and well know Watcom code base and are trying to have this page deleted by avoiding the available information. SHifting the Open Watcom licenced code to the status of a single individual may achieve the effect you want to achieve but it is not based on fact or the legal ownership of the Watcom code base.

Hutch48 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hutch48 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank user Jclemens for having made a constructive retagging the page as rescuable but with the demonstrated disregard for published Wikipedia policy and the rush to delete this page I doubt that it will succeed.

Be sure of this much, if the work I have done to put this page up so it can be added to and improved is wasted, I will never re-create it again.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the software? Show me sources, independent from the source code, that have given significant print coverage to this software's notability. If this was notable, where are the books on this software from publishers like O'Reilly Media? If this is a specialist software there must be many books on how to program in this language for those just starting out. There must be some major coverage by specialist magazines or maybe a special TV show on G4? No? Then it fails wiki's standards, but that doesn't take away from the software itself. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I have asked the person responsible for this deletion notice to make a case for lack of notability. OrangeDog has failed to do so. He merely refers to the issue and states his inability to look in the appropriate places for interest and importance of the software which is the topic of the article. This is clearly specialist material and a lot of Wiki contains specialist material. We don't go around deleting things merely because they are of interest to a very specific audience.

As I pointed out earlier, JWASM gets 12000 Google hits from various countries around the world. It's being mentioned in assembler fora. In the field of assembly programming it is obviously notable. But the sort of notability that has been evinced by the deletion proponent is not the sort that he can expect in this field. Assembly language is not something that run of the mill programmers ever use, so books don't often get published in the area. He cannot be serious mentioning coverage on radio or TV. Claims of notability or the lack thereof need to be established in the appropriate circles and the deletion proponent has failed to do so.

Sadly I think OrangeDog is wasting everyone's time because he has not made the effort to establish the notability issue. He has merely shown his lack of interest in it. He has not established his case from the assembler language community out of which it needs to be made. -- spincontrol 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. Articles which are challenged must demonstrate notability to remain un-deleted--the burden of proof isn't on those arguing for deletion. If the article has multiple independent RS it's kept; if it doesn't, it's deleted. The point of the AfD discussion it to ascertain whether the sources provided, if any, are sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in terms of the assembler community has been demonstrated here. I've got nothing backwards. This is a specialist area and to make cogent comments one is supposed to be familiar with it. I've seen no-one here advocating deletion show any familiarity with the assembler community and its unique situation. That's why the issue of notability is being misapplied here. This is not a scientific community, so you won't get journal articles. This is not a popular programming area so you won't get books. It's a dirty hands on working community that is left to its own resources and the denial of support for the community because it doesn't fit neatly into expectations goes against the Wiki spirit. The notability issue as presented for this deletion case is a failure. -- spincontrol 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Since I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be, could you perhaps point to which of those 12k google hits are sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial manner? If we can then add them to the article, this can be closed in short order. I'm well aware that in certain disciplines, sourcing isn't straightforward. However, if your claim is that this subject has never been covered in any sort of book, academic paper, or reputable web publication, then why does it matter how many google hits there are? If it's popular in forums, but there haven't been any reliable sources discussing this in detail, then this might seem to be a case of future popularity. (Also, at present, your comment seems to be asking that OrangeDog prove a negative in an AfD. Am I misreading you?) -- Bfigura (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JWASM is in wide use in the assembler community now. It's not about future popularity. The 12k hits show that a software package for a very restricted field is being dealt with all around the world. The assembler community is a very practical one. Documentation is usually only supplied in code examples that come with the package. The notion of notability needs to be applied in the appropriate context and one's expectations of the signs of notability need to consider that context. -- spincontrol 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is not that the subject is notable as defined by WP:N, but rather that the definition in WP:N shouldn't strictly apply since the subject is popular within its community? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this sounds to be similar to what was proposed in Wikipedia:Software_notability. Since that proposal failed, I'm still going to ask you to point to a few reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial fashion. (I don't see any that jump out as reliable sources, but since I'm not an expert in the field, that's not entirely meaningful). -- Bfigura (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is that the notion of notability is not being considered reasonably. The issue is not simply one of counting signs from usual sources. You won't get them because it is inappropriate. Specialist material can easily be found on Wikipedia. Look for example at the article for Gutians: though this is a scholarly subject it is rather obscure. So obscurity is not an issue of notability. The Gutians are well-known in the specialist field of Assyriology. JWASM is also known in its specialist field. It's just that the means of demonstrating the fact is different. Notability is the same in both cases. -- spincontrol 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gutians cites a number of books and academic journals in its references, thus satisfying WP:GNG. That is why it has not been deleted. WP:Other stuff exists. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have just proven my issue with your attempted use of notability. -- spincontrol 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Now you've totally lost me. For the Gutians, you can find easily (if you have access to the proper books and journals, otherwise google books/scholar gives excerpts) reliable references that would discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. Are they obscure? Specialist, maybe, but they're still clearly reliable sources. Please point to reliable sources that do the same for this subject. Since we seem to be going around in circles here, I'll try to be more on-point: if your reply hinges on the words "popular" or "12k google hits" you don't understand what I mean when I'm talking about notability. -- Bfigura (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but did you read what I actually said? Especially: "It's just that the means of demonstrating the fact is different." I didn't say that that there were no scholarly references dragged out for the article. If you look into the issue you'll find that the actual references are very paltry. However, the Gutians are important in their field, a field that has standard means of displaying notability. However, in the practical world of assembly language programming the means of displaying notability is very different. You are not address this issue. You are just plowing on not dealing with notability appropriately in its specialist field. -- spincontrol 19:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact I did. Atama sums the isssue well, in his reply below. You don't want us to judge the subject by the WP:GNG or anything in WP:N. Too bad. If you don't like policy, you should try and form a consensus to change it. However, that was recently tried and failed. Just because you don't like the criteria doesn't constitute an argument against us applying them. -- Bfigura (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See below regarding WP:GNG. -- spincontrol 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point of notability, as has the deletion proponent, OrangeDog. This can be seen in the inappropriate standards to measure it. -- spincontrol 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I haven't missed the point of notability at all. There is no "right" to have an article here. Articles must demonstrate notability to be included. The notability of this has not been demonstrated. So, barring the sudden demonstration of notability through 3rd party sources, it will end up being deleted.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you still have missed the point. If you can't understand the issue of what notability can be in the assembly language community, then you shouldn't be posting uninformed opinions. The opinion based on the lack of knowledge of the issue displayed here should mean that most of the assembler articles would need to be deleted. This sadly is an expert area and people who know nothing about it should either leave it to those who do know or simply band together and remove nearly all the assembler material on Wiki. You seem to be incapable of understanding the notability issue and how to gauge it in this field, so you can resist understanding and be coherent or learn about what you are giving opinions on. -- spincontrol 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has missed the point. You're trying to reinterpret Wikipedia policies so that your article, which does not satisfy those policies, will be kept. You can try to Wikilawyer and philosophize your way through this AFD but if the article cannot be made to satisfy the policy AS WRITTEN, then it will be deleted. No special considerations are given, and no, the topic will not be left to "those who do know" (that's not how Wikipedia works). And people won't be going around to delete all other assembler content either if/when this one is deleted. That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that's as old as this website is. If you want the article kept, you need to demonstrate that the subject of this article has been covered in some form of mainstream or specialist media. Does the assembler community have a niche publication? That would help. See WP:RS for more information. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the non-specialists please tell me what they would expect as notability in the assembly language programming community? I understand what you expect in scholarly communities, but not in the relevant field. People so far haven't shown any familiarity in the field. However, they want to remove an article which isn't self promotion or publicity, but which has a relevant interest base in a specialist field.

Is it that people want to discriminate against the assembly programmers by eliminating material that can be of help to these programmers? -- spincontrol 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can make your point by adding one big comment instead of small comments under everyone's opinion. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was not done by the editor who tagged the article.
x86 Assembler is a specialised field.
Is there some reason why this was not applied before the deletion tag was added ?
Hutch48 (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given that Hutch48 and other supporters have been unable to find the requested sources, it's a bit irrelevant isn't it. I'd just give this argument a rest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you bothered to read WP:FAILN you would not support inappropriate tagging of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])
Splitting hairs much? You won't find any loopholes that let you keep this article. I suggest you start looking for media coverage. However, I agree with Elen in that if you and spin have spent this much time arguing semantics instead of actually providing reliable sources, there are likely no reliable sources. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be consistent among editors interested in deleting the topic that the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia WP:FAILN have not and will not be adhered to and that at least some of the editors prefer to avoid these guidelines to bypass the appropriate methods of review contained in the guidelines.
Hutch48 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG[edit]

Let's look at WP:GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."):

1. Significant coverage: do you doubt that the article is significant coverage?
2. Reliable: you are free to check the annotated source code for the reliability of the material as the editor has done.
3. Sources: We have to go to where the information for the material comes from, ie the annotated examples.
4. Independent of the subject: the annotated software is our source of the useful knowledge on the package.
5. presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria: an independent software package in use among a wide specialist community. Shouldn't it be dealt with?

Where is your beef with WP:GNG? What am I missing regarding your attempt to use notability? -- spincontrol 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that you're completely misunderstanding what the GNG means and what it applies to:
  1. To quote the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It has nothing to do with the content of the wikipedia article or the fact there are many google hits.
  2. You're confusing reliable sources with primary sources.
  3. You still haven't pointed to any reliable secondary sources.
  4. Again, this refers to the references, not the article or wikipedia editor.
  5. This means that if you met the above 4 points, the subject might be notable, but isn't necessarily. Quoting again: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion".
I'm not sure how I can be more clear: please point to 2 or 3 reliable references that discuss this in a substantial fashion. Otherwise, you're just arguing against WP:N being applied, which doesn't help you, or anyone else. -- Bfigura (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are starting to think of what notability would be for this community. Discussion is not frequent. People are just trying to use it. However, you do get descriptive mentions here and here, while a Copenhagen academic recommends it in this pdf book chapter. You'll find substantial discussion here, but it does feature the package maintainer. I still believe the widespread availability in several countries including Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Thai sites (as the Google hits indicate) is a reasonable sign of notability in this specialist field. -- spincontrol 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeepers Friend is available in several countries - that doesn't mean Wikipedia has an article on it. The book has possibilities, but who is this chap and is the book significant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it matters - it's a two sentence reference. And the rest of the sources are forums and wiki's, which don't usually count as reliable sources. -- Bfigura (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you can see that the issue of what is notability in this context is more complex than you had considered. People are using it as the worldwide distribution indicates, but you have no traditional way of tapping into the circuit. Nevertheless, the Wiki article would be a helpful introduction to anyone considering the package, which I doubt that you can deny. -- spincontrol 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make any difference how helpful it would be - unless it meets notability it won't be here. If there are respected sites within the 'community' where there are - for example - reviews of the product, or comparisons of it to other products, then a compromise might be possible. But all you've turned up so far is one line confirmation that it exists. It seems like you and Hutch are trying to write the first detailed appraisal of the product - in which case, Wikipedia is the wrong place for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not dealing with meaningful notability in the specific context. What I've seen is a matter of non-experts trying to project their own notability needs onto those of the assembly language community, which is as I have said inappropriate. The only reviews for this sort of product is that people use it. If it is found to work on a trial and error basis then they continue to use it, as can be seen in the Google hits. I have written nothing for the JWASM article and Hutch48 hasn't written an appraisal of the package, but an introduction to it, as per most Wiki software product articles. Agner Fog in the pdf I cited gave a brief appraisal and it was positive. -- spincontrol 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're dealing with non-experts projecting Wikipedia notability needs, because this is Wikipedia. Perhaps there's a specialist Wiki out there that caters to such material that would be a more appropriate place for this info? In any case, because this is Wikipedia, you need to appeal to Wikipedia's standards, not your own or those of the assembly language community. We do have certain notability requirements for particular subjects that might show notability aside from what our general notability guideline has, see WP:BIO for some examples that pertain to biographical articles. There are no such requirements for software, however, so your only appeal is the general notability guide and per that guideline this article falls short. -- Atama頭 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem not to be dealing with the argument. Wiki has no problem with specialist material, as I've pointed out with articles about Endogenous Retroviruses and Gutians. The problem comes with your expectations as to notability. You are happy enough to have an expert cite expert journal material in the specialist field of retroviruses or obscure third millennium BCE people on the margins of Assyria, but in a situation where the notability cannot be measured through academic journal references (not appropriate), you need to consider other means of gauging notability that is meaningful in the specialist field. -- spincontrol 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afd isn't the venue for that discussion, but it is certainly a discussion you can have. If you want new notability guidelines for software, it could be worth starting the discussion with the software project to see what they might possibly be in the future. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the argument from Doktorspin, because I look at comparison of assemblers and listed there are a number of assemblers that are properly backed up with independent published sources. If our notability criteria were such that articles about assemblers could never be included because we look for the wrong kind of sources, I might be swayed. But you're asking for an exception to be made for a particular subject, to allow it to be included. I don't see the need. I'm not opposed to software having some extra criteria outside of the general notability requirements, but as Elen stated this isn't the place for that debate. -- Atama頭 01:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't looked closely at the material. I'm sorry you are mistaken about a number of assemblers with your claim that they "are properly backed up with independent published sources". If I agreed with the views expressed here, I would mark most of them as up for deletion. For example we must exclude all Microsoft sources from being used on the MASM page and of course we remove Hutch48 source materials and Randall Hyde another member of the same forum as Hutch48 and we say goodbye to the MASM article. Yasm goes for total lack of 3rd party sources as is the case for High Level Assembler. A close look at NASM and it's shot as well. POASM gone. TCCASM gone. You are opening up a very slippery slope which could destroy this whole area in Wikipedia. A lot more stuff would have to go, because of inappropriate criteria for notability. You could decimate the whole programming sector. Hutch48 seems to have left the discussion. You non-experts have driven away your only expert editor in the field. You've all done Wiki a disservice. This is because of an inappropriate application of notability. -- spincontrol 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I agree that proving notability for obscure software is hard, and probably harder than writing articles about obscure butterflies. However, this AfD isn't really the best place to complain about that: doing so is unlikely to bring people to your side. If you think it's a big enough problem, propose a solution in the right place. -- Bfigura (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not obscure software: it's being distributed around the world. It's just obscure to you. If JWASM weren't a topic of the MASM forum, but merely of the upper year at Karlsruhr Hochschule, then you could talk of a lack of notability. Your application of notability is wrong, not the idea of notability itself. Should I now mark MASM for deletion to watch your reactions? I can do that. Then you can be good and follow suit with many of the other software articles. -- spincontrol 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to quote rules to justify poorly thought out decisions. The precedent here needs to be understood. Arbitrary actions have consequences that can lead to folly. If one is not prepared to be either knowledgeable or coherent, one shouldn't meddle in Wiki affairs. -- spincontrol 04:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spin, you keep dancing around and trying to confuse the issue of this AFD. ALL articles here at Wikipedia must meet the guidelines laid out in WP:RS and WP:GNG.--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you must be a Wiki lawyer at least look at the reality and live with the implications. -- spincontrol 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For "this" article we all want to know where are the trade magazine articles, news paper articles, book coverage, or even academic journal coverage?--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have plainly skipped the whole section to ask this question. It's like people who come to the party when it's getting to the final stages. You've missed out. -- spincontrol 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read this entire section, I still do not see the reliable sources. Either provide them or stop implying that there are some. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you should be at the point perhaps of being able to say how notability might manifest itself in the assembly language community. Are you able yet? -- spincontrol 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forget why you believe this software is the best thing since Fortran and why you believe the notability guidelines shouldn't apply and answer where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the software would be.--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the unfounded assumptions at the door. You don't know my personal opinions of the software. You don't have a crystal ball and you haven't quite got the technique down to be a Wiki lawyer yet. -- spincontrol 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show us sources (independent from the source code) that have given significant print coverage to this software's notability. Where are the O'Reilly-like books on this software like "Programming in JWASM" or "Advanced JWASM Techniques" or "JWASM: Unleased"? If this is a specialist software there must be many books on how to program in this language.--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further proof that you have not read this section. So please deny it in your own time. -- spincontrol 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either provide them or stop implying that there are some. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage? Then it fails Wikipeda's current standards and the article will be deleted. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you got there at last. It took a while, but you didn't need to say anything but the final "me too", meaning that you don't understand the implications of notability in the context of this material.
When confronted with an issue that doesn't fit the neat guidelines, instead of you all considering the implications all I've seen is legalism against the Wiki spirit, which would be sufficient to cite WP:IAR. You are getting it wrong folks, but you've lost it. You can delete this page and hack up that page and say in all ignorance that you've followed the rules, rules whose point you have ignored. You are not considering the benefit to Wiki in this process. You don't know much at all about assembly programming or the community that supports it or even what notability would mean in that context. You just know the law and it will set you free of your responsibilities to Wiki.
I did get something out of this discussion, the very cute od template and for that I thank Bfigura (mille grazie). Thank you all for your input. -- spincontrol 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article that has no reliable sources is beneficial to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia that overrides Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Please explain how deleting an article about an assembler that was released just over a week ago, "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Cunard (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is very easy. Look at the source code. The only problem is that it isn't easy to cite. People keep coming to this with their eyes closed not trying to deal the complexities of the field. You are failing Wikipedia by showing no adaptability of the guidelines. Consider notability for the assembler community, not your normal signs of notability. -- spincontrol 08:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source code does not provide verifiability for the history section of the article. In order for JWASM to be included in the encyclopedia, outside publications that have reputations for fact-checking must write about the topic. Inclusion on Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not those of the assembler community. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are guidelines, not immutable laws. Worshiping the institution doesn't allow you to see its efficacy. Notability is about relevance according to the standards of the community which values or uses the the material. As I've already indicated, applying inappropriate standards simply means you will have to remove most of the recent assembly language material including the MASM article. All you are doing is limiting Wiki to your application of rules. -- spincontrol 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I cannot see how the assembler community has taken note of this as you have not been able to produce any sources from them. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you aren't up with the discussion. I have cited one thread from the MASM forum (there are others) which specifically deals JWASM and its usage. -- spincontrol 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RS -- "For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.... Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put this corpse out of its misery[edit]

While I have put this conversation behind me as a waste of space, developements elsewhere indicate the the current author of the JWASM project is less than interested in it being referenced or hosted by the Wikipedia organisation and this should function as a sufficient condition to put the remains out of its misery given the level of support among the non-technical contributors to this debate to delete the topic. I will not waste the time or effort on a fiasco of this proportion by chasing up any form of reference over this situation as I no longer have any confidence in the technical capacity of Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that JWASM isn't important enough for you to help find reliable sources talking about it -- that makes our decision here much easier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find Hutch48's post above remarkable. What is the relevance of the fact that the author of the JWASM isn't interested in it having a Wikipedia article? Why on earth should this cause Hutch48 to drop support for "keep"? The only sense I can make of this is that the support was, in fact, intended as promotion of the software. And surely the expression "hosted by the Wikipedia organisation" supports this interpretation. Wikipedia is not a web host, and articles do not exist to promote or "host" products.JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should refrain from speculation and read the comment. The relevance of the author's lack of interest in Wikipedia IS that the author has a lack of interest in Wikipedia. It also indicated that there is no self promotion for the previous reason mentioned. i have no association with his project and in fact don't use it but in the interest of improving the seriously lacking technical content of Wikipedia in this specialised area I wrote the original stub for the article so that other interested parties could subsequently edit and improve the page. Perhaps you could attempt to exercise a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and base your decisions on the available evidence.
Hutch48 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Sarek, you are a hard man to put a smile on. I put the heading up so you could not miss it. I have advised you that the developer does not want his work on Wikipedia and encouraged you (and all the other editors) to remove the complete JWASM page from Wikipedia. I don't intend to document the origin of the character set for the spelling of the notification of the name of the author to make the reference for you as I simply could not be bothered. Now as the handling of this topic has been an absolute shambles, perhaps you could use your influence to make something useful out of this fiasco and convert the JWASM page to free disk space. Noting that such matters as a Wikipedia Author's conference on the deletion of a technical article occurs with all the fanfare of a gnat breaking wind, I wish you well in your endeavours.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quit creating textwalls that distract from actual discussion. UnitAnode 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ignoring the discussion. -- spincontrol 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop posting non sequiturs. Seriously, though, the textwalling that you guys are engaging in is seriously damaging your cause. You should stop. UnitAnode 06:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your link shows that a reader on the MASM forum, who appreciated the work of the editor who extended the JWASM article long before the AfD came up, has come and given his opinion here. Please desist from libelous accusations about meat-puppetry and apologize for having done so here. -- spincontrol 06:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which factors indicate that this topic is notable? I have been unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:N. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if we take open source projects and documentation as being publications, (RS does say publication in any medium, and that it depends on context, and use common sense, so CD counts too. Sourceforge possibly too. ), then notable projects using JWAsm might therefore also count as reliable sources.
Caveat: nwasm does not appear to be in the ubuntu or gentoo repositories (yet) ... <scratches head>
--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I'd suggest that the people building the JWAsm article quote some open source projects using JWAsm at this moment in time, and maybe scour some dead tree documentation for mentions. That should probably be sufficient to end the AFD (knock on wood)[reply]
  • This assembler was released on January 19, 2010. The lack of reliable sources is due to the fact that this assembler was released a little more than a week ago. None of the sources from SourceForge are reliable; most appear to be forums in addition to not being independent of the subject. If you wish for this article to be kept, please provide links to sources that have covered an assembler that was released only nine days ago. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this location lists JWasm170b.zip 20-May-2008 15:06 312K . --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That download site provides no context about JWASM and thus cannot be used to establish notability. Furthermore, Japheth does not appear to be a notable organization and appears to be a website that could be qualified as a self-published source. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ec whilst updating>

  • this location lists JWasm170b.zip 20-May-2008 15:06 312K . (so at least 2 years ago, but that's version 1.70, where's the older versions?)
  • A cursory glance on SourceForge here shows a release on 2009-03-09, so even using only sourceforge as a source, I can't see what you're getting at.
  • Oh, I see a 2009 update even in the google search you link. So you clearly have not read your own link.
That said, you are searching sourceforge incorrectly. I would be looking for projects that cite JWasm as a dependency. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that JWASM was released in 2010; evidently it is wrong. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly didn't take any time to read the article before you made this blunder. Here, read this: "Its initial release is dated 05/20/2008 as v1.7. The current version as of 1/19/2010 is JWasm v2.02" -- spincontrol 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that I did not read the whole article. The only parts I took note of were the introductory paragraph, the references section, and the infobox. When none of these showed promising signs of notability, I did not read the rest of the article. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This carelessness is typical of the lack of seriousness shown by some of the commentators here. -- spincontrol 08:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look at most of the results the Google links I cited because I could tell, by their titles, that the links led to either forums or download pages, neither of which are reliable. I did look at this page because the title, Reviews for JWasm at SourceForge.net, hinted that it would provide reviews that were independent of the subject; but a look at the page determined that this was not so. The link you provided above is a download site, which does not establish notability. I have searched through SourceForge and have found no source which provides significant coverage about JWASM that is independent of the subject. If you can find some, please link to them, so that they can be evaluated. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No argument from me there, though I have my doubts about your sourceforge scanning skills now, of course ;-) . Ok ok, I'll get off your cae... Would you accept one or more significant projects applying this tool to be sufficient to establish notability? Application of the tool will also show up in such a project's published documentation (so we should be able to get a source that's in *english* at least, provided it exists ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not move the discussion out of chronological order. I have moved the votes back to the original place. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My attempt was to keep the general opinions that state preference together as they aren't directly related the discussion that people insert them into. I shall forthwith leave it in chaos to appease you. -- spincontrol 08:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for promising to leaving the comments as they are. Messing with the chronology of the comments will make the page more muddled than it currently is. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you want the chaos and you have shown determination in keeping it all mixed up, you're welcome. -- spincontrol 08:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying the date, though it is not germane to this deletion debate. As I said in the comment above: Are any of those opining keep able to provide any references — excluding unreliable sources such as download sites and forums — that can establish notability? Cunard (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shoot yourself in the foot when you deliberately make the false claim that certain forums are "unreliable". Where else do you get in contact with the assembler community? Where else do you contact the people who are the big names in that community, the acknowledged experts in the field? You simply aren't doing your job, when you refuse to consider reliable sources simply because they are from a forum. -- spincontrol 08:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would be more likely to get support for your case if you took a little more trouble to find out how and why Wikipedia policies are set out as they are. Most internet forums are not reliable because anyone at all can post there, just as Wikipedia is not reliable for the same reason. The fact that people involved in the relevant community post there is of course true, but that is not what "reliable" refers to in this context. Another point is that remarks like "you deliberately make the false claim" is not likely to win you support. Generally in Wikipedia it is considered best to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. In this case is there any evidence that Cunard was deliberately making a false claim? It seems to me far more likely that it was Cunard's sincere opinion. The fact that you disagree with that opinion does not make it a deliberate false claim. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does Cunard, a non-expert in the field, know about the particular forum and its membership? And your repeating stuff about most internet forums and lack of reliability is all very fine cliche except that you too are in a similar position to Cunard. One of the earliest things one should learn is enough to know what you don't know. The particular forum features a number of experts, including a writer of a book on assembly language, a university lecturer in programming, maintainers of assemblers and disassemblers distributed through the world. Now people might be happy thinking about fora as being like the Britney Spears Fan Forum, but such a reductionist approach doesn't allow one to adapt to the realities of the assembly language community. Now Cunard's claim was false. I did not assume he made the claim fraudulently. He, like you, didn't know any better. I assume good faith, but it doesn't mean that I have to accept poor judgment, so please don't bother attacking me with assume good faith. It is not relevant and neither are most of the trivial evaluations of the material in this article. -- spincontrol 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. You make assumptions about me. You imply that I know little or nothing about "the particular forum and its membership". Unfortunately more than one forum has been mentioned above, and you do not make it clear to which one you are referring. If, as seems most likely, you mean the MASM Forum, I know a good deal about it, and am myself a member of it. You repeatedly suggest that I know nothing about the forum, as in "He, like you, didn't know any better", and "One of the earliest things one should learn is enough to know what you don't know". Since your assumption about me was mistaken you may like to consider that last quote yourself. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have only talked about one forum and I assumed you had read the discussion. Yes, I did make an assumption about you. -- spincontrol 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't know how to make this any plainer than I have already done, but however many "experts" post on a forum, it is not a reliable source if it is also open to absolutely anyone at all to join and then post, and this is the case with the MASM Forum, the Ubuntu forum, and the sourceforge forum, which, so far as I am aware, are the only ones that have been referred to above. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is where you needed an expert in the assembly language community and there are several on the MASM forum. -- spincontrol 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. You say "I did not assume he made the claim fraudulently. He, like you, didn't know any better." I do not see how you reconcile this with your earlier statement that he/she "deliberately" made a "false claim". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a problem if it had been a "fraudulent claim" "deliberately" made. Cunard was very deliberate in his claim. He was applying a guideline, as he thought, to the T. The result nonetheless was that he deliberately made a false claim. -- spincontrol 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am sorry that you took my exhortation to assume good faith as an attack: it was not intended to be one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. -- spincontrol 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So where are the books about JWASM by this writer or the published papers on JWASM by this lecturer? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't keeping up with what has been said. You are confusing the credentials of forum members with your desires for stereotypical notability indicators. I was establishing the community of assembly language experts amongst whom JWASM has notability. You've already been told that you don't get popular books on assembly language these days. It's a commercial thing. Microsoft didn't encourage people to use assembly language, preferring to make money with shite like C++ and other slobs. But they kept up the assembler because they needed it. It's just that there were no nice books or glossy articles. Does that make sense yet? -- spincontrol 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding myself even though I am detached fom JWASM and primarily use MASM as my assembler development tool (and don't get on very well with the author) the MASM forum easily exceeds any other source you can ::access in terms of technical expertise in the assembler arena and it has a massive online resource of source code going back 5 years. You can safely use information from the MASM forum as third party reference ::that is not directly from the author and is not self promotion material.
Hope the information is useful to you.
Hutch48 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be the same forum on which you were soapboxing about how crap Wikipedia is? Kim Bruning above has come up with a potentially useful idea - do you have evidence of the use of JWASM in any major projects? Can the professionals and lecturers show where it is recommended as a solution, or included in courses? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please act according to the Wikipedia requirement assume good faith and take note that external web sites are not subject to your approval or censureship. For editors who are interested in obtaining independent 3rd party reference the site is available and not run by the JWASM author. He is simply a member who posts in the forum.
Hutch48 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Where is the failure to assume good faith in that post by Elen of the Roads? I don't see it? (2) Yes, but the problem with that forum as explained before' is that it is not a reliable source. Whether you agree with the policy or not, Wikipedia policy is that we have articles only on topics which have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard the assertion but with no evidence to back it up. The forum has the runs on the board, user base, database size, membership expertise and online technical data going back 5 years. You cannot provide a web site in the world that has comparable expertise in the MASM/COMPATIBLE assembler programming arena. I leave the matter up to editors who are interested to find what they need.
Hutch48 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have had WP:N WP:V and WP:RS - the core policies and guidelines - cited at you numerous times. Perhaps reading them would help? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would be more than welcome to provide alternative reference material in the x86 assembler arena if you are able to do so. I leave the matter up to editors who are interested to find what they need.
Hutch48 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like these? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you forgot to include MASM and or COMPATIBLE x86 assembler in your Google search. Specifications and data availability as above and this is why I leave the matter up to editors who are interested to find what they need.
Hutch48 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got beat to the punch. OrangeDog didn't actually look at any of the Google scholar hits. Look at a similar search for MASM and he'll kiss this faux pas goodbye. -- spincontrol 13:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is in fact somewhat more serious than just a simple mistake. The original search criteria at the beginning of the page produces garbage where an informed search using the following Google search pattern site:masm32.com "JWASM" -wikipedia produces a very substantial body of independent 3rd party reference material addressing exactly the topic that of this incorrectly tagged deletion attempt is attempting to avoid.
Hutch48 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. You can paste them in here, or add them to the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be a responsible course of action as the page is already over 100k in size and adding some hundreds of links would make the page even harder to navigate. I doubt whether interested people will have any difficulty in pasting the Google search pattern into a browser and reading through the listings at their leisure.
Hutch48 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, just add the best ones.
That would get us round the notability problems which are bedevilling JWASM at the moment, and would not inhibit the info being split into its own article as notability of JWASM develops (as commentators above have suggested that it will)Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a blurb-level independent coverage of JWASM as well (p. 13), so it can be mentioned to that extent (it looks like the main advantage is that it made the syntax fully MASM compliant). Pcap ping 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference to Agner Fog's optimisation manual. Agner Fog is a qualified academic and very experienced x86 assembler programmer with publications dating back to the middle 1990s. He also mentions a number of sites on his optimisation page at URL http://www.agner.org/optimize/ which include the MASM forum (through its old URL) and the JWASM assembler under the heading of Useful assembly links.
Hutch48 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is a published academic in social sciences, and also wrote some articles for Dr. Dobb's. Although his geeky stuff is mostly WP:SPS, the writings on his site have a number of citations in mainstream computer science academia [4], [5]. Pcap ping 14:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for the link to the Open Watcom site for WASM. The reference to JWASM is clear as a fork derived from the original WASM code base under the identical Sybase licence and from reading the information specific to WASM it would appear that JWASM is a lot more advanced in its development than WASM at this moment.
Hutch48 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we tackle this by widening the article[edit]

Ok, so if we move to a WASM/JWASM page, everyone agrees notability criteria have been met? In that case, I move to move, and then to close the discussion on that note. Is anyone opposed to that ? If so, why? We'll try to meet your (remaining) criteria. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Someone bothered to provide some reliable sources rather than textwalling. I would still say that JWASM is not notable of itself, but suitable for inclusion in an article at Open Watcom Assembler. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Open Watcom Assembler. Gods, Dog! Your speelig is nearly as bad as mine :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I blame this tiny keyboard. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Let's close this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely should be an article at Open Watcom Assembler or perhaps WASM (software), but this isn't it. Anything more than a paragraph about JWASM there would be undue weight. —Korath (Talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for Korath to apologize for an unfounded accusation of meat-puppetry. -- spincontrol 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get it, not even if you put it in capital letters and <big> tags too. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are required to maintain proper civility, as per WP:CIV. You certainly were not civil in the meat-puppetry accusation. Please act responsibly. -- spincontrol 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's probably only about a paragraph of useful stuff in the article. A great deal of the code info is pure [[WP:OR (see Hutch48's description of researching the article by downloading the code). The idea would be to incubate key data about JWASM until it achieves the required notability level. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm confused—I thought you were supporting moving this article there. That's certainly how I read Kim's proposal (which, to be explicit, I oppose vehemently). —Korath (Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use an undue weight argument, you need to show how additional paragraphs about JWASM would introduce a viewpoint that could somehow hurt the NPOV position of the article. Seeing how there's not really many different viewpoints about assemblers out there, I have the impression that any kind of argument you could make along those lines is going to be a rather long uphill battle. Is there any kind of flaw in my reasoning, that you could think of? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, undue prominence to JWASM, pushing the POV that is is better or more important than the actual notable subject, WASM. The Neutral Point Of View is that these things exist, the danger is in unduly espousing the point of view that they are more great/popular/useful etc. than they verifiably are. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, somehow writing an article where WASM is truely super-prominent over JWASM seems kind of crazy, because I gather that JWASM is apparently the (more) active fork? I get the impression that it'd be a bit like saying that mentioning egcs in the gcc article would somehow be undue weight.
My spidey wikey-sense is tingling. But it could be a false alarm, of course. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to these folks that JWASM is a current assembler that works for all x86 systems, while WASM is a dead product. It doesn't matter that people are actually using JWASM, while WASM is outmoded. What matters is literal interpretations of guidelines that are supposed to be, well, um, guidelines and not fossilized laws. Clutter Wiki with useless material, but forget about the useful stuff: it isn't set in dead trees. -- spincontrol 23:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant "undue weight" more in the usual sense than the WP:REDIRECTINCAPITALLETTERS one—I'm worried about verifiability and notability here, not neutrality. If the preponderance of reliable third-party coverage is about WASM, and the article is ostensibly about WASM, then the information about WASM shouldn't be drowned out by that of its fork. —Korath (Talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a fork, the 2 forks tend to share a large portion of their codebase, so there will be a large overlap in the descriptions of the two projects. In this case, JWASM seems to be the current live fork, if I'm hearing things correctly. If I were writing an article for a programmer, I guess I would concentrate on JWASM, and mention WASM only in passing.
At the same time, an SME has actually offered to write a review of JWASM on Slashdot, so that the bureaucratic requirements are met ;-), so we'll have notability one way or the other soon anyway, I think. (provided (s)he keeps his/her word :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't quite get to get away with that ;-) There are plenty of sources, the disagreement is on the interpretation of the reliable sources policy, imho. Would you be satisfied with that characterization? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs, forums, download sites, and personal websites are not reliable sources. Please provide the "plenty of sources" that pass Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Your honor, I rest my case" ;-)
Alright, let's try this way: In general, if we just try to get the broadest impression possible: What can you tell me about JWASM, from your online research? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little coverage in reliable sources about JWASM. http://www.japheth.de/JWasm.html, while not a reliable source that can establish notability, can verify the one (or more) sentence(s) mention at Open Watcom Assembler. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard is misapplying Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources when he says, "Blogs, forums, download sites, and personal websites are not reliable sources." He hasn't read the guideline closely enough. What it actually says is that they "are largely not acceptable." And that difference is the one he has been ignoring in this discussion. The MASM forum features people who are established experts in the field, two of whom have published in that field, which the guideline specifically states as acceptable. Scratch that one, folks. -- spincontrol 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Established experts discussing JWASM can be used for verifiability, not notability. That will suffice for a mention at Open Watcom Assembler. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that's actually a good analysis to use as your position to build consensus from. Just could have been worded more diplomatically. I guess Cunard thought it was good enough though, since he actually came a bit your way. That was quick. :-)
What do you still need from Doktorspin for notability, Cunard? Would that Slashdot article be sufficient? And we'd better take into account: what if the article isn't done before end of this debate, would you accept something in lieu of that for now; or could we agree to re-view the situation in a few weeks, say? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a subject that is likely to be notable only among experts, discussion among experts can be taken as evidence of notability. From Wikipedia:Reliable source examples

An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online. In cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases.

In the case of something as obscure as assemblers, it is likely that the only sources will be Internet forums and similar. I'd take Slashdot, if it has anything to say on the subject Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Slashdot link is a download site; it provides no context about JWASM. To establish notability, Doktorspin needs to provide evidence of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as reliable magazine/newspaper articles.

The article's content will be preserved under a redirect if we decide to merge it to Open Watcom Assembler. The redirect can be undone if/when sources that establish notability can be found. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking about two different things here, however for some reason Slashdot is only currently loading for me in Kanji (I presume this is some kind of initiative test). Slashdot (and Sourceforge) routinely feature reviews of products written by technical experts which are subject to site moderation and so fall into the category of RS I described above. The difficulty was that Sourceforge doesn't have any reviews of jwasm. A technical expert has offered to write a review and post it on Slashdot, and that should be acceptable for other editors to cite once it has gone through the site's moderation process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note[edit]

While the tool in question is legally in the Watcom camp by weight of its licence, it is technically far closer to the Microsoft Assembler in its capacity and support. WASM is useful only in that its code base was upgraded to JWASM and there is no active development of that code base apart from JWASM. Treat it like a rename with the leading "J" and you have solved the problem.
Hutch48 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah we're sort of trying to build a consensus for a move. We've established notability for WASM, and we just got everyone who was here previously to agree that JWASM could be merged into there, (until a friendly local SME gets an article accepted on the subject).
So having read all the words, do you agree that we should move the article, so that we have enough sources to make things notable? Or do you think some of the mentioned sources (especially for WASM) are lacking, and if so, what is lacking about them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only real risk is if the JWASM fork is dumped as a dead listing attached to the old version of WASM then it will die where it gets dumped as it is doubtful that anyone competent could find it and it will not be upgraded or maintained. I would suggest exploring the identical legal ownership issue and the minor rename from WASM to JWASM and addressing it as the next version of WASM. The filename difference here is trivial but to simplify the entire procedure, use the logic JWASM = upgraded WASM. Makes the worlds a simple place, actually enhances Wikipedia in content terms and should keep everybody happy (except the author [nothing makes him happy]). :)
Hutch48 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read all the words, no I don't agree that it should be merged and I don't see a consensus for that here either. – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have made some assertions, but have not yet revealed your reasoning behind them; so respectfully (and imho), your statement is not yet complete. Would you care to complete it? The two pieces of information I am missing from you are A) Why does the merge not address notability concerns, according to you? and B) how are you coming to the determination that there is no consensus for merging? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Slashdot Story/Review[edit]

OK, for all of the wind bags who are giving the Wiki admins/editors a hard time, perhaps you can offer the least assistance in sending this situation in the right direction and we can finally come to a mutually acceptable resolution. I've submitted a review/story to Slashdot regarding JWASM. Any positive/reinforcing comments/expansions of the aforementioned story, in conjunction with the other links provided during this AfD, should help establish sufficient notability. So, I recommend we put our egos and backyard-lawyer degrees aside for a moment and get this thing done right. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they actually wrote the review already, so we're somewhat past the "offer" stage. If it gets accepted by the slashdot editors, I think we've nailed down that it would meet the minimal requirements for being a reliable source. And I agree we shouldn't call anyone "windbags", if only because everyone here is typing, so no one is actually exercising their lungs ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unit, the editor has proven experience in the x86 assembler field, is a member of the NASM development team and has been around in the x86 assembler area for long enough to write this review. If Slashdot are willing to accept it I see no reason not to cite it.
Regards,
Hutch48 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, I have read your review and it is fundamentally sound. You have asked for feedback which I am happy to pass to you but this is not the correct environment. Where would you like to have any responses pointed ?
Hutch48 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, anyone who can register/login to Slashdot and comment/reply to the submitted review/story in a positive/useful/reinforcing manner would probably be demonstrating the best course of action regarding this situation. I believe that the more people who reply/talk about a story while in "pending" status, the better chance that the story will ultimately be accepted to Slashdot... another case of demonstrating notability, if you will. However, there are no guarantees, but at least it is worth a shot. Also, I've posted a message at ASMCommunity requesting similar support from anyone else interested in JWASM. If you can do the same at the MASM32 board, and get even more people involved, we might just get accepted! SpooK (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're canvassing to try to game the Slashdot system, in an attempt to turn the review you wrote yourself into a reliable source? The more I hear about this, the less savory it appears. UnitAnode 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> Out rules-lawyering the rules-lawyers? I like it! O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, before people think I'm being nasty or so. Here's what happens if we work out our decision-and-outcome matrix, on the assumption that the Slashdot story gets published:

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment at the proposal, as to SpooK's attempt at gaming Slashdot's (and Wikipedia's) system. We'll see what happens. UnitAnode 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he could also submit his article to a magazine or journal, but that would take longer. I look forward to the day when a referee for an academic journal writes what you just wrote on slashdot. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, respectable magazines and academic journals aren't nearly so easily gamed. UnitAnode 16:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unit, it would be more appreciated if you would AGF in this situation. Referring to my story/review at Slashdot as "gamed" is rather insulting. I've made the effort to personally review JWASM and share it in a way that is positive. The effort in posting the story on Slashdot is a result of this situation, but only in that JWASM itself has piqued my interest. Whether or not Slashdot or Wikipedia ultimately accepts JWASM as notable enough to mention, will be determined by the due process of each place. If we are to find that Slashdot is ultimately not interested in posting this story, then we have our answer from them. If such a "no" answer from Slashdot sways Wikipedia to also say no, then so be it. However, to assume that an interest in posting to Slashdot is only to provide notability for Wikipedia is shortsighted, as both are places to learn and gather more information... there is no mutual exclusion here. So, in short, please desist with the slander/libel. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of "slander/libel" is akin to a legal threat. Either remove that accusation, or you may be blocked under WP:NLT. UnitAnode 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per example of Wikipedia's definition of perceived legal threats, I have not repeatedly accused you of libel. Furthermore, I never said I was going to pursue legal action against you, and to help clarify and put you at ease, I assure you that I will not. However, it may be interest of you that "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" as per WP:Libel. I didn't see any claim that said responsibility was limited to any one section of Wikipedia. This Wikipedia policy is the primary reason I've referred your comment as defamatory/libel, in hopes that a 3rd party will comply with Wikipedia's "policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." If this means I have to play a catch 22 between WP:NLT and WP:Libel, so be it. Also, Unit, I would like to ask what is it that bothers you so much about my efforts that you have to instantly attack me as a person? SpooK (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing is textbook gaming, in my view. No one is going to remove that comment, because it's not libelous to say that. You will stop calling it "libel" or you may very well be blocked. UnitAnode 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point in case, your view. You have made a presumptuous personal attack against me and/or my character. I can see how, based on the situation at Wikipedia, you could jump to such a conclusion. However, if I saw you on the street with a hypodermic needle in your hand, I wouldn't be quick to judge you as a drug addict versus, oh let's say a diabetic. Even if I was driven to, I wouldn't attempt to make such an accusation without all the facts in hand, not just with what I choose to see/believe with my own two eyes. So, in the aforementioned scenario, if you ran up to said person and scoffed/accused them of being a drug addict, how do you think they would react/feel if they were indeed otherwise? A bit confused and sore perhaps that some stranger ran up to them only to knock them down a peg? You've made no attempt to gauge my overall intention, i.e. ask me directly, and went instantly to posting an accusation both here and at Slashdot. Again, what would you think if you were in my position? This does not sound one bit like WP:AGF to me. SpooK (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cool this down guys. Regardless of whether it falls into some legal definition, it's definitely BAD FAITH to assume that SpooK is doing this to game the system rather than to try to help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unit, I have no beef with you but I suggest that you are actively attacking an editor at a personal level making a criticism that you cannot back up. When you use the term gaming you are directly accusing another editor of dishonesty and clearly did not assume good faith. SpooK has the runs on the board in technical terms, by your direct insult to this editor are you claiming technical expertise to counter his capacity to write a technical review ?
Hutch48 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If an article on JWASM is published in Slashdot then we have to discuss if Slashdot can be considered as a reliable source. Hutch48 wrote that he is in communication with the man who created this assembler and discussed about the Wikipedia article. The article in Wikipedia on JWASM may be under WP:SELFPUBLISHED. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis, you should withdraw this comment as its obvious that you don't read the submissions made by other editors. As a matter of fact I am not in communication with the JWASM author and am not part of his development group/supporters, he is simply a member of my forum who is allowed to post information about his assembler there. Note also that the JWASM author is not a Wikipedia editor and has indicated a lack of interest in having his project on Wikipedia.
Hutch48 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hutch, we do not care who you are IRL, nor the author of JWASM, nor that you don't like him, nor anyone's lack or otherwise of interest. Your constant assertions that you don't get on are innapropriate for this discussion. All we care about is what reliable sources say, and that you avoid editing in conflicts of interest. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of accusations flying around in the discussion, such as co-ordination and meat-puppetry, now we may add conflict of interest. Backdoor Wiki-lawyering doesn't help Wikipedia.
Please drop this approach and get back to your effort of justifying your claims regarding notability for JWASM in the context of the assembler language community. Your consistent failure to do so should show you that you are in no position to judge notability in this case. Notability comes with the respect given in the relevant community. It's easy enough for you to point to notability in scholarly circles because there are institutions that leave a paper trail. The assembler language community isn't so into dead trees. You have been looking in the wrong places and you have no expertise in the field. You have not shown that you are capable of talking about notability in this case. -- spincontrol 17:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, SpooK has written the Slashdot review from the viewpoint of a recognised expert, but hasn't contributed to JWASM. Hutch48 wrote more or less all of JWASM, and is reviewing the Slashdot review from the viewpoint of a recognised expert. Yes, it is a bit incestuous, but the pool of experts to call on is very small. It may be preferable to review the source at the relevant noticeboard after this AfD concludes, to get a focus in onto it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be more clear about my position/situation, I don't contribute to JWASM, but instead NASM. Also, I do not get along with Hutch48 or the author of JWASM... at all! Anyone who knows Hutch48 and myself, and our history, will take an initial look at this situation and certainly be confused that we could be standing on the same side. This goes to show you, that our interests are about letting people know about this particular tool is something that should naturally transcend any perceived "agenda" or former disputes. The same can be found in areas of U.S. politics when Democrats and Republicans work together for the greater good. In short, my interest in this is in JWASM itself as a viable tool, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current consensus at the noticeboard is that it is an unreliable source. Cunard (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance and Conclusion[edit]

As previously mentioned, Slashdot has indeed published the review. I've went ahead and added it to the JWASM page as an external link. Aside from Cunard's mention of the pending Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard review, if there are any other currently valid objections in allowing the JWASM page here at Wikipedia, please summarize your points below and how they support/enforce the Wikipedia guidelines/rules. Any other advisement will also be equally appreciated. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's significant off-wiki coordination with regards to this article, see [6] and [7]. This is probably where all of the meatpuppets are coming from. ThemFromSpace 22:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki coordination?! I'm pretty sick of people making these cheap accusations of meat-puppetry. This is obvious tainting the discussion. The rule is Assume good faith. How can anyone think of your comment as made in good faith? I had a look at the threads pointed to and there is discussion regarding work on the JWASM page and a discussion about abandoning Wikipedia. You have to be out of your mind to construe meat-puppetry out of that. Please, please don't make this sort of accusation again until you have some substantive evidence. -- spincontrol 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to assume good faith, when clear evidence of off-wiki coordination is present. UnitAnode 23:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." So, show me the evidence where the intentions of the people, who want to see JWASM mentioned in more detail, are not in good faith and not contributory by helping the Wikipedia project. Please note, the one discussion about "giving up" on Wikipedia is not a valid example. SpooK (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have read the threads indicated and I join SpooK with a challenge to UnitAnode or whoever else to show the asserted co-ordination. It just isn't there, so it seems that it is a wrongful assertion. -- spincontrol 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There in lies the problem, the coverage is independent, as I have not authored any portion of the Wikipedia page whatsoever until adding the external link. Again my desire to submit a Slashdot review may have been invoked by this particular AfD, but it isn't the only reason I have done so. Even if Wikipedia rejects the JWASM page, I am more than satisfied in my contributions via the Slashdot review I've submitted. SpooK (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One source of questionable reliability does not satisfy notability (and looks very odd if the article pre-dates its only reliable source by a long way). We still need more. Until then, I still think deletion of JWASM and expansion of Open Watcom Assembler and/or Comparison of assemblers is the best course of action to create high-quality, well-sourced articles on notable subjects. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will a redirection from JWASM to a section/subsection of the Open Watcom Assembler page that highlights JWASM be available/reasonable? Please advise. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, it is mainly people who are not in the field of IT who are commenting here. -- spincontrol 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's try to remember that Wikipedia is, more or less, an encyclopedia and therefore we should respect and appreciate the differences between how they and Slashdot operate. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but both are good sources of technical knowledge and not mutually exclusive. SpooK (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then under that presumption, let's get back to talking about how this should be taken care of. Deleting the JWASM page is all but obvious. The question remains, what is an acceptable means of leaving relevant portions of JWASM information on Wikipedia. So for, the best idea as been to include it as apart of the Open Watcom Assembler page. However, I want to know if a redirect from JWASM to said content will be acceptable. SpooK (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Notability[edit]

To be just a little discursive here, there is notability and there is notability, the notability of the changing fashions of Paris Hilton easily exceed the notability of most of the content of Wikipedia yet it is hardly a viable category for Wikipedia. The criterion of notability changes from one category to another and to apply the notability criterion for the medical profession to the Britney Spears of the world is simply a mistake. Would a review in a perfectly respectable C++ programming journal addressing the ZEN of Japanes Floral Arrangements function as notability for such a category of art ? The drift here is that the topic like any other topic needs to be addressed in terms of an appropriate criterion of notability.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question as to whether this topic satisfies a viable and appropriate criterion of notability but it is not reasonable to try and inflict a deliberately inappropriate criterion of notability on a topic simply to improve the chances of deleting it. Computer programming tools will never make the front page of Pravda, the New York Times or the UK Independent and trying to apply criteria of this type to a topic of this type is simply an error of category.
Hutch48 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment of Brian gives an idea of what it's expected from a computer program/language in order to be notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no deference to Brian, I would be far more interested in a correct implimentation of WP guidelines in terms of an appropriate criterion of notability for an assembler.
Hutch48 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the definition of wikt:notability is varied and open to interpretation. That is why we use the definition given in Wikipedia:Notability. Articles are judged, and AfD discussions operate on the concept of Wikipedia:Notability, not wikt:notability. Arguments based on wikt:notability are largely irrelevant if they do not follow Wikipedia:Notability. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then bother to read it, specifically WP:FAILN and explain why you failed to comply with the content when you incorrectly tagged this article. Hutch48 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask the creators, as they had proven themselves to be uncivil and to hold some sort of grudge against me. I did not contact an expert on the subject, becuse the only other assembler experts I know on Wikipedia... (see above), and I am an expert myself on compilation tools. I did not place a ((notability)) tag because the last time I "graffitied" one of the author's articles... (see above). I made a search for reliable sources in good faith and could find none. Therefore I opened a discussion about the article's notability to seek community consensus, and notified other editors as specified in the guidelines. There, happy now? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then by your own admission you have failed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and incorrectly tagged the article. RE: You attempted deletion of over half the MASM page, you are responsible for your own actions, I refuse to get into the type of edit war you were trying to start and fortunately another editor reverted your deletion. You have no excuse for this ommission, please act to fix the incorrect tagging of the original article. Note further that the search criterion you placed at the top of the page was unsound, you were not supposed to be using a search criterion that may have found Britney Spears. Hutch48 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36, to save you any further distraction, read the Sybase EULA, ownership and notability proven. Hutch48 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There first has to be an agreed definition of "significant" in this situation. Significant to whom? Significant to what extent? The problem with way "significance" is being implied by the deletionists is that it favors popularity more than actual notability. Point in case: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." and "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." as per WP:Notability. Popularity is not an absolute requirement of Wikipedia notability, but it helps. Multiple sources are not an absolute requirement of Wikipedia notability guidelines, but again, it helps. In that context, we are back to the original problem of weighing the opinions of everyone's interpretation of the rules/guidelines and are no longer benefited by such absolute contexts. Half the time the deletionists state the rules, half the time they are interpreting them to meet their personal opinion. What you may see as "wikilawyering," I see as a cat and mouse game of one side keeping up with the other due to the use of red herrings all around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpooK (talk • contribs)
Please try not to get partitioning of editors into "deletionists" and "inclusionists" into this insanely long AfD as well. There is no partisan behaviour, nor wikilawyering here, just a couple of editors who refuse to get the point and continually skirt around issues with textwalling instead of actually producing sources. AFIK, "significant" is usually taken to mean more than a mention of existence (i.e. includes something that could go into an encyclopedia article). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And then we have come full circle as the Slashdot article I have produced is a source that is beyond the mere mention of JWASM's existence, as it also demonstrates what it is and could be used for. In short, the point has been made and now it has turned into an unfortunate matter of separating personal opinion from facts on the matter. WP:IDHT is a two-way street, and a prerequisite for maintaining a neutral point of view is the presentation and acceptance of the facts, not opinions. Now, I can't say that I don't agree with you in that others should just get to the point and come up with a reasonable compromise, say like merging. However, when further claims are being made without facts to back them up, is why this AfD really persists the way it does... that is just as much "textwalling" and "wikilawyering" as is being claimed. SpooK (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please act to address the ownership of JWASM by Sybase and its proven notability. You may wish to avoid the obvious issue but this is a disacussion page that you started and you are trying to label discussion as "textwalling" to distract from the topic. If you ceased wikilawyering you would not have tagged the original article in the first place. Hutch48 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Note[edit]

In the 150k+ body of text above there are a number of issues that have just been ignored.

QUESTION Is the notability argument about the minor change in file name OR the file version ?
If so, does this criterion apply to any development tool being upgraded ? PHP, C++, PERL, Pascal, GCC, MSVC, VB, etc ....
If not, then it does not apply to JWASM either.
Hutch48 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have been ignored because they are irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the 5 listed point are true, it does not need to be. Notability is established by the ownership of the code and the Sybase and Watcom names are notable. Hutch48 (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then bother to read a dictionary and find out what inherited means. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wisecracks will not help you here, plaese maintain a neutral point of view. Legal ownership is determined by the Sybase EULA, correctly displayed on the original page that you tagged, not your opinion would you now be willing to correct this mistake. No inheritance required, Sybase own the software according to the EULA. Hutch48 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anode, your comments aside, the EULA proves ownership and the owner is notable, ewhere is your argument? Hutch48 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted on talk page: I would think that the reasons for keeping any page would be accuracy and usefulness defined as both "will/do people come here for this information?" and "will this information help with decision making or problem solving?" I believe that the answer to both is YES.

I arrived here because of discussion of alternatives to MASM in an online support chat room. If MSFT drops the assembler, or if people wish to develop in an open source environment such as Linux or BSD, this information on the provenance of the software is important, and should be continued. If editing is needed for some reason, then a notice to that effect would better serve.

While the Intel assembler is clearly going to stay available, many people writing low level code for speed or hardware control have done so under Windows using MASM, and the Intel assembler uses a different syntax, and is not a convenient replacement for MASM.

Finally, if wikipedia doesn't keep the information, who will. It would seem a project dedicated to increasing and distributing information would not consider dropping an article which is useful, accurate, and not readily available elsewhere. 70.109.112.48 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's criteria are outlined here and do not include "accuracy" or "usefulness". If the material is deleted, there are plenty of specialist wikis or fora that could host the information. That it is not readily available elsewhere is almost exactly why it would be deleted. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog, you have still faile to address the proven ownership of JWASM by Sybase with proven notability, as you are responsible for the original error in the face of correct notability on the original page, would you now act to solve the problem you put into place.Hutch48 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is over independent notability. Everything that's been brought out so far implies that there's not enough material for a separate article about this assembler. However nobody has suggested that this article is fake or spurious or not useful; there are enough sources to justify a paragraph in an aritcle with wider scope. Given that this is part of a larger whole, it makes sense to merge to WASM, not delete it outright. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I risk inspiring another wall of text but how is proven ownership of JWASM by Sybase prove notability? As people have already stated, notability is not inherented. The proven ownership of Tinkerbell by Paris Hilton doesn't mean we should have an article on Tinkerbell. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 31 January 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.
More