Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merge, redirect, merging partial material, etc, can be discussed in an editorial capacity at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Watcom Assembler

Open Watcom Assembler (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)

Two editors, User:Hutch48 and User:Doktorspin, have expressed concern on the talk page that the sourcing for this article is inadequate, so a discussion of notability seems necessary. Pcap ping 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Open Watcom Assembler was very influential, and certainly important enough to warrant an article. The existing references are enough to establish that there is sufficient notability to justify the existence of the present stub article. The references are not as good as one would like, so it is to be hoped that better can be found, but that does not justify deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the fact that I didn't believe that JASWM was notable enough (yet) for an article, the Open Watcom Compiler is definitely a notable assembler. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Save for Pcap, the nominator, I have notified all of the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM about this AfD. Having reviewed the sources in the article, I believe that the Open Watcom Assembler has received enough coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're risking sanction by doing this, Cunard. Not by me, however. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • C'mon. Cunard's notices were neutrally phrased, relevant, and appropriate for a group of editors who had relevant knowledge and interest. As long as s/he notified everybody involved (I did not check to verify this), this is not only allowable, but eminently worthy of praise. LotLE×talk 10:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'd think, huh? But I got a block for this same thing in '07. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am one of the editors notified by Cunard. This is perfectly in line with process for WP:AFD in which interested editors are notified. It seems quite reasonable to assume that editors who took an interest in the deletion discussion for JWASM which resulted in a redirect to Open Watcom Assembler would also be interested if this article were nominated for deletion. The notfication was completely neutral in tone and neither advocates for keeping the article, nor deleting the article. This isn't canvassing. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tbsdy lives' concerns stemmed from a block he received for a series of edits that was incorrectly deemed to be canvassing. See our discussion here. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have withdrawn my "keep" vote and have voted "delete" below. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold a value judgement at the moment, I don't like the idea of deleting technical pages but it seems to get done here. To try and help out with the so far incorrect technical documentation placed on the page, I suggest that it be done in 2 stages, demonstrate that Open Watcom is notable THEN prove that WASM is a component of Open Watcom. Here are some link to help out with the demonstration that Open Watcom is notable and reviewed by independent third party reviewers.
"Open Watcom" free compiler looking for AMD64 help http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1018187/open-watcom-free-compiler-looking-for-amd64-help

Open Watcom C/C++ 1.4 http://download.cnet.com/Open-Watcom-C-C/3000-2069_4-10186374.html

Open Watcom 1.7a Details http://download.famouswhy.com/open_watcom/

The Open Watcom Compiler http://sitereview.org/?article=463

Open Watcom Reflections http://owreflections.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-watcom-18-and-c.html

Open Watcom C/C++ http://www.zdnetasia.com/downloads/pc/swinfo/0,39043052,50002392r-39197100s,00.htm

Professional, optimizing, multi-platform C and C++ compiler with a comprehensive suite of development tools http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Coding-languages-Compilers/Open-Watcom.shtml

If the consensus is that links of this type show that Open Watcom is notable then there is little point to continuing this debate. Hutch48 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge (some of) the material from the redirected JWASM back into this article. I almost feel like this is Speedy keep, since it follows immediately on the redirect decision from the other AfD, and hence verges on WP:POINTy. LotLE×talk 09:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object to a speedy keep, you are making an assumption that this was submitted in bad faith, which it was not. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone added the reference by Randy Hyde, there is now at least one decent piece of reference material on the page, the other stuff should go and appropriate reference material should be added. Hutch48 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. That is pretty much as strong and verifiable a reference as you will ever get for an assembler. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. I thought this should be notable, it sounds familiar to me. I searched Google Books and could only find one match? The sources, well, I should say links listed above are mostly just download links and such, but how does this illustrate notability? I suppose I'll just wait for Pcap to chime back in, because to be honest, I'm not seeing it right now, and I'm kind of surprised. JBsupreme (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An Amazon.com search will not show anything because Hyde publishes his books for free, in PDF form. I'm a little concerned now... it appears that A86 has been listed? Striking as this looks like I'm questioning the motives of the lister of the A86 deletion discussion, which I'm not. That's definitely notable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure about this particular article, but I strongly object to the idea of moving any information back to the JWASM article. That article should stay as a redirect. ThemFromSpace 11:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog, your comment is not consistent with the activities in the JWASM AfD and to protect this page from further deletion attempts the whole idea of this discussion was to establish notability for WASM rather than assuming it and not providing the reference and review data for it. The review by Randy Hyde is a good start, the links to reviews of Open Watcom add some more weight to retaining WASM but decent reference material is still needed to ensure it is not the target of another deletion attempt. Hutch48 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the nominator has failed to express a valid reason for deletion. Bfigura (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article fulfills the general guideline for notability by having significant coverage in independent reliable sources per the references already given in the article. -- Atama頭 17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the sources currently cited really meet our definition of reliable sources as per WP:RS? I remain skeptical, especially of the last source which is "Best viewed without a GRIZZLY BEAR in your pocket." [1] JBsupreme (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - You made a good point. I admit I didn't look closely at the sources, slap me with a fish. I do think the first reference is good, but the others are the equivalent of personal blogs. One other good source would convince me to keep, but for now I'm not satisfied. -- Atama頭 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather surprising, although that is a WP:SPS, it's also a WP:RS because of the numerous academic citations it gets; see these searches: [2] [3] [4]. Almost certainly has more citations than any of the other sources used in this article. Also, Fog has previously published in Dr. Dobb's on this topic, so he meets the exact letter of WP:SPS too. Fog's work was contested on the talk page because it's not an "assembler review", and the coverage there is rather brief: Pcap ping 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets at least the minimum notability standards for an article. Collect (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, and merge at least some of the material from JWASM into it.-gadfium 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I have abstained from !voting. I'm still in an information gathering mode here, why is it that we are being so lax on reliable sources for this one subject? I feel that there is an undisclosed WP:BIAS going on here, and I don't mean that as an assumption of bad faith, I really believe it is happening whether the people participating in this discussion realize it or not. How is the source agner.org for example considered "reliable" in the framework of Wikipedia? Ordinarily we would dismiss these types of sources and it seems we're making an exception here. Correct me if I am wrong, please. JBsupreme (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems incoherence rules this roost. Not one shred of reliable third party sourcing in this AfD and everyone is committed to keeping an article about a dysfunctional assembler about which nobody knows anything substantive other than its pedigree and that nobody has any interest in. Oh, Randy Hyde mentions it on a page in which he distributes it. That's notable... not. Notability seems to have been "established" through assumption, when you lot ditched JWASM and were trying to clean up that mess. But WASM is no more notable than JWASM. The ridiculous references supplied in the WASM article, I bothered to look up and see that they were playing the system, yet two of them have been put back,

  1. one because it supplies a connection between Watcom and WASM and
  2. the other because it gives info about JWASM. That sure provides rationale for maintaining WASM.

Where's the notability here? This really appears to comes down to an arbitrary pot/kettle choice. Stop all this me-tooing and provide the reliable third party sources that can make the topic of this article notable. After the song and dance over JWASM, you should at least do that. -- spincontrol 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, this is a stub that none of you cares about, none will maintain or improve. The only work done on it recently was trying to clean up because of the previous mess. -- spincontrol 20:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some sanity to the discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, I've asked for valid third party sources and no one wants to cough them up. I can't find them either. I am sure that this article will be kept (this time) under some sort of WP:IAR since everyone seems to like it (?) I don't really understand why we're totally ignoring our notability guidelines and making an exception for this one assembler. JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you weren't aware, the article was created in an attempt to compromise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, but the most insistent opposer there seems to have changed their mind. I really don't care if this and the JWASM redirect get deleted. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was already a WASM article, so get your facts straight. When I created the NavBox for x86 assembly topics, I included the already existent WASM (Open Watcom Assembler).
Why not be coherent rather than voting weakly to keep? Vote to delete. You know that there is no notability for WASM. -- spincontrol 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know which articles I've created. The WASM page never contained anything about assemblers before I added it. The redirect WASM (software) was created after Open Watcom Assembler. Try checking facts yourself before making accusations. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't check your facts. This diff shows that the Watcom Assembler was added to Comparison of assemblers 15:29, 2 May 2008 with an article name "WASM" and the information "Sybase Open Watcom Public License" and changed 23:06, 31 August 2008 to WASM (software). I don't know exactly what sort of mess you made, but you didn't create what already existed. Interestingly Pcap aborted this WASM (software) Open Watcom Assember article, thus: 22:04, 28 January 2010 Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (The other WASM (Wolfware Assembler) is less notable and unlikely to get an article). There is a Wolfware Assembler, but certainly WASM (software) pointed to the Open Watcom Assembler, as Comparison of assemblers makes clear. -- spincontrol 12:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as I already showed, "WASM" was a disambiguation page that did not include any assemblers, and "WASM (software)" did not exist until 28 January 2010, with no previous versions. It's not my fault if you didn't check what you were linking to. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply and continuingly mistaken. The Comparison of assemblers calls you mistaken, as it acknowledges WASM with link as the Sybase Watcom assembler. You're pretty safe though as the original WASM (software) page that got wiped and the history is useless. -- spincontrol 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd be coherent, and !vote in the same way (towards WASM being notable) that I did in the previous Afd (unlike some). One man's !vote won't change consensus though, so don't trouble yourself about it. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Watcom C/C++ compiler. I agree with JBsupreme about the souring. The declarationt hat this is an important assembler isn't supported by the sources provided. For example, what at first glance would appear to be substantial is the Leiterman book which has a chapter title of "MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM". But upon closer inspection, the chapter title is rather whimsical and WASM is covered in a single by-the-way sentence. [5]. I just don't see the sourcing that establishes this as independently notable. It can be mentioned to be part of the Watcom C/C++ compiler distribution, so a merge rather than outright deletion seems reasonable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who Cares, In its current state, the article is barely even mentioned in technical data, independent review or reference apart from the single review by Randy Hyde which is reasonable and its best chance of survival is simply that its a part of the Open Watcom project. It has a very limited history in use as it was always overshadowed by both Microsoft Assembler and the Borland Turbo Assembler and it never had any reference material of its own, it depended on Microsoft MASM literature from MASM 5.0 and 6.0. The choices are this, merge it into Open Watcom as a mention that it existed OR change the criterion and suppliment the article with the later Open Watcom software JWASM but as it has already been rejected by a previous AfD there is little else to do than dump it as a one liner in Open Watcom. As it is no-one will maintain it as no-one uses it and if it lingers on in this form, it will be the target for a future deletion. Hutch48 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that WASM's only claim to fame is that it is the ancestor to JWASM, whose article was found not to be notable. All this keeping (without any serious third party sources) seems to be pure hypocrisy.

I haven't voted in this AfD and I believe it is wrong for anyone who voted in the JWASM AfD to vote here through conflict. -- spincontrol 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Changed from keep. I thought that this Google Books result (titled "MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM") provided significant coverage about WASM, but after scrolling through the next fifteen pages I can find no such evidence. The coverage in the agner.org link is insufficient because the coverage about the Open Watcom Assembler is trivial. None of the sources provided by Hutch48 at 09:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC) suffice. Most of them are download sites. The sole reference which appeared to be reliable is insufficient; it's tone is not neutral (EARLIER this month, the nice folks at OpenWatcom.org released version 1.4 of the Open Watcom compiler) and it is published by the tabloid newspaper The Inquirer. While Whpq (talk · contribs)'s compromise is plausible, I will not advocate a merge until notability for Watcom C/C++ compiler has been demonstrated. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the data on this page it looks like the trashing of JWASM has taken WASM out with it. While I doubt there are any problems in the notability of Open Watcom, I agree with an earlier post that WASM's claim to fame is it was rewritten into JWASM which has far greater support and is currently in use but as the decision has already been made on its lack of notability, that decision appears to have taken WASM out with it. I would opt for at least putting reference to WASM in an Open Watcom page as it is known as a component of the Open Watcom project. I will not vote to delete this article as I don't support trashing programming articles but unless more data is added to demonstrate is notability, I do't see a ay to justify its existence. Hutch48 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Hutch and Spin, it doesn't matter if you don't "vote", just by discussing here you are voicing your opinion. An AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Some of us just embolden things to make it easier to see the gist of what we are saying at a glance. Don't feel that you need to reply to this note. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeDog, this discussion is about deleting the WASM page, not your private hobby horse and I will add my comments here for objective editors to read with indifference to your views or advice. Feel free to tender any technical data you are competent to add to improve this conversation. Hutch48 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having re-read most of this page and the discussion page for WASM, it would appear that Pcap has some interest in maintaining this page so on the basis of the Randy Hyde review which is both competent and independent and the historical status of the Open Watcom project I have decided to support the page being kept with the provision that Pcap ping can add more data and maintain the page. It notability is still vary-order-nary but I think it just scrapes through as it has been around for a long time. Hutch48 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a volunteer here like everyone else. I'm under no obligation to maintain anything. Pcap ping 10:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is easier to pull down others' work than it is to construct anything. -- spincontrol 11:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have no fear, no-one was trying to twist your arm, I mentioned you as you showed some interest in keeping the page and I was looking for a reason to try and support keeping the WASM page. Note that I personally work in MASM and would not waste my effort on a pile of old junk like WASM but I would not wish to deny anyone who is interested the chance to fix the page and add some useful content to it that prevented it from being deleted or just merged as an aside in Open Watcom.
Regards,
Hutch48 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Watcom C/C++ compiler. There are not enough sources to justify a free-standing article on this assembler. Even Randy High doesn't consider it one of the more important x86 assemblers, in his section "Which assembler is the best?" He does not include it in the main group of eleven x86 assemblers at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/WhichAsm.html. The cited article by Agner Fog is interesting but I don't think it has much to do with this assembler. The article about WASM at http://www.openwatcom.com/index.php/Wasm is way more interesting than this one but doesn't link to any reliable sources we could use. For comparison of article quality and sourcing take a look at GNU assembler, which I think meets our standard for notability, due to the importance of the Gnu tools, although the sourcing could be better. For our general coverage of assemblers see Category:Assemblers. I don't see any problem justifying an article on the Watcom C/C++ compiler, and I can imagine having a sentence or two added there about this assembler. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I'd sure hope the GNU assembler meets our standard for notability; it's probably the most notable assembler out there. I wouldn't expect every assembler article to look like the one on GAS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the lack of sourcing for the article is because it written from personal knowledge. After all, the article is from the Openwatcom wiki. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, thanks for the link, it is the right type of information but with the Wikipedia criterion of external 3rd party only, useful and detailed information like this has to be ignored which says that the naive interpretation of Wikipedia notability criteria is in need of some refining. This is not the place to do it but it is a problem.Hutch48 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing, if the wiki has editorial oversight by the organization, is a primary source. Which is just fine as a reference though it doesn't count for notability. In a tech article there's nothing wrong with having say three references to independent secondary sources and the rest to primary sources or expert SPS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge:despite Doktorspin's comments, I shall add my comments here, and the closing admin may give them the weight they decide they deserve. At the JWASM debate, I was persuaded that this topic was notable. Since it now appears it is not notable under wikipedia terms, but somewhere along the line the general head from which this lot sprang does appear to have notability, I think the best bet is to keep merging up the food chain. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Article has three independent sources, which meets GNG. I'd also suggest that this article shouldn't have been AFD'd as the previous merge is still being worked out, sources are still being debated, and so forth; this should have been given the customary 6-month wait before being AFD'd again. However if we lack consensus to keep, the proper alternative is to merge to Watcom. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other AfD was for JWASM, a fork. This article was actually created during the AfD of JWASM. This article itself was never sent to AfD, so I don't see how the 6 month thing applies. The editors that wanted to keep JWASM were the ones that argued this article has insufficient sources (on its talk page), and repeatedly deleted the references as fake. Pcap ping 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that if an AFD'd article A is merged to a parent topic B, then the 6-month moratorium should apply to B as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as for the three independent sources, the quality of the sourcing needs to be examined. As OI pointed out above, one appears to be a chapter at first glance is just a passing mention. - Whpq (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are legitimate concerns with the depth of coverage, I agree. That's why I started this AfD. I disagreed however on the talk page that the references are outright fake, so stripping them seemed inappropriate. Pcap ping 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't hang too much on my choice of words. I just don't think that whoever posted them looked at the references. They add no notability to the article or provide any serious third party sourcing for any content. So far, it's a contentless article apparently there to supply somewhere to house the ghost of JWASM. I think some of you are keeping this article for the wrong reasons. Forget JWASM and you'll find nothing to this article but a name without any text behind it. -- spincontrol 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came across another passing reference to WASM here. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Watcom_Assembler&oldid=1138186549"