Deletion of JWASM

Comment: The crux of the deletion arguments is the lack of significant coverage in Wikipedia:Third-party sources|third-party |reliable sources. Are any of those opining keep able to provide any references &mdash; excluding unreliable sources such as download sites and forums &mdash; that can establish notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: No secondary source coverage to be found. I can therefore only conclude that it fails  as it is. Will of course reconsider my comment if others can provide sources. Redirecting to MASM would be inappropriate, for reasons discussed above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails , and the textwall supporters don't provide ANY clue as to notability, only WHY the article should be kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Open Watcom Assembler (WASM (software) redirects there) now that that article got created. As I wrote above, there is a secondary source http://www.agner.org/optimize/optimizing_assembly.pdf which describes JWASM, and it is a  per discussion above, which got lost in all the slashdot back and forth
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Can we stop discussing other user's imagined intentions or conduct, or the content of other articles. This is a deletion discussion about JWASM, and should be dedicated to discussing whether there are sufficient sources to establish the notability of JWASM (not its producers, or usefulness, or extent of use, or the content of the article) and thus whether it is a suitable subject for a standalone article. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not include technical information on how to use the product. The final decision will be made by an uninvolved (and likely non-computer-expert) administrator based on quality, not quantity, of arguments - , , , 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AGF||WP:AADD||WP:TLDR)

Comment: This appeal to delete has no basis whatsoever. It meets none of the criteria in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Open Watcom's WASM (software)|WASM is actually a somewhat http://books.google.com/books?id=avDkMnuhakkC&pg=PA481&dq=WASM&cd=4#v=onepage&q=WASM&f=false notable http://books.google.com/books?id=SJ1QAGz3sqQC&pg=PA418&dq=WASM+assembler&cd=2#v=onepage&q=WASM%20assembler&f=false assembler by Wikipedia |standards. (By the way, it should not be confused with Erick Tauck's Wolfware Assembler, which is another historic assembler that uses the same WASM acronym http://www.ars-informatica.ca/article.php?article=32.) The Watcomm products were http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/WASM/index.html bought by Sybase, and then open-sourced. JWASM appears to be a http://www.openwatcom.com/index.php/Wasm#JWasm.2C_a_fork_in_progress fork of that, and it does qualify for a ''separate'' article at this point in time by Wikipedia guidelines. But I suspect that most of this article applies to Watcom's WASM as well, so it could be reused/renamed for that purpose, and mention the differences that JWASM brings in |due detail
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:DUE)

Comment: This is a fun read, but cutting through all the words, the article still singularly fails to demonstrate notability as required by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Slashdot has http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/01/29/1632253/x86-Assembler-JWASM-Hits-Stable-Release posted the review of JWASM.  FWIW, I find Unitanode's many allegations of bad faith above to be offensive and destructive of this discussion.  The fact is, Slashdot is a ''pretty good'' source, and one that does exercise editorial discretion in publishing articles (maybe not as much as I would like, but that's even more true of, say Fox News or Washington Times).  In any case, publishing there is no different as a principle than publishing in an academic journal... there's not "COI" in finding a topic notable enough to publish about.  And there's no reason that someone who happens to be a WP editor is barred from publishing elsewhere (for example, I have personally published to a variety of 's on topics that are covered by WP articles I monitor... in some cases, I am one of the cited sources in some such articles... that's not bad faith, it is simply the areas of my expertise
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Not |notable by Wikipedia's standards. This isn't to cast doubt on the merits of the software itself, but by the guidelines we use on Wikipedia to judge the notability of the topic this article fails. Significant coverage in more than one independent reliable source is what is used to show notability, and those asking for the article to be kept have demonstrated themselves that this isn't available
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per the lack of sufficient coverage in |reliable sources. My searches for sources have not returned anything substantial. This topic fails Wikipedia:Notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)