Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasm

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasm[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged with notability and unreferenced since 2011. I couldn't find any RS that support it. The sites in the external links section are just the tool's website and manuals, which doesn't establish notability afaik. (Some results on Google Scholar are about something else, which just shares the acronym.) -- LordPeterII (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. I was also not able to find any WP:RS that support the subject as written. Looking at the couple of incoming links, suggest the article is self promotion of a non-notable subject. Jeepday (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources no indication of notability Ratnahastin(Cont) (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After 19 years you find references everywhere, see https://qlforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3057&start=180 -- Polluks ★ 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list two best sources here? Pavlor (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki, a blog and a repo -- Polluks ★ 14:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All user submited content - not reliable sources per Wikipedia definition. Any reviews or news articles in online/published magazines with editorial staff would certainly help there.

Note: Above comment by @Pavlor

@Polluks: You would need a reliable source, for example a PC magazine like C't. Blogs, repositories and the like are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia (see WP:BLOGS). I agree VASM looks like an interesting utility that has been around for a while, but it never gathered much attention outside of its userbase. Therefore, it does not warrant its own Wikipedia article. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the book in the references section? By the way c't lost its quality years ago. -- Polluks ★ 18:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a self published book - essentially worthless for notability. Pavlor (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Self-published essentially means someone voices their opinion.

@Polluks: I must admit I am quite confused about your stance here. Your participation in some other AfDs and elsewhere suggests you are well-versed, but right now you sound like you don't know about WP:SELFPUB? Maybe c't is indeed not as good as it once was, I merely used it as an example. But you clearly can not build an article exclusively on self-published content. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, how about this Vbcc#Refecences? I know, the books don't explicitly mention the assembler, but it's part of the VB toolchain. -- Polluks ★ 19:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think vasm could be mentioned in the vbcc article and its own article redirected there (eg. using some short news on amiga-news.de as a reference for their connection). Pavlor (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to vbcc - it's part of the vbcc toolchain and lacks the RSes needed to support an independent article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2021 (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.