Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RosAsm (2nd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RosAsm

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

Similar to the 2007 AfD* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RosAsm), there are no sources, and the article is blatantly promotional in tone and content. Also the project appears to be dead (last update on the web site appears to be 2013). There is no indications of notable use, and while there have in the past been a few noisy proponents on usenet (alt.lang.asm, etc.) this was not accompanied by evidence of actual use. Even if this article is kept, vast portions need to be removed (for example, approximately the entire "Features" section), as they are almost entirely promotional or reference manual in style. Rwessel (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*(successful)

FWIW, this article has three year old unreferenced and notability tags, and fewer than 20 edits in those three years. Rwessel (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a massive amount of detail about an apparently non-notable program. I'm leaning Delete or failing that, cut down by about 95%.--- Elmidae (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is very promotional. I think WP:KIBOSH would be a better solution to this one since there have not been any improvements to tone it down while it had WP:CHANCE. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 6 April 2016 (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.