Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A86 (software)

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. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A86 (software)

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

It would be advisable to do the following google search for A86. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This x86 assembler has fewer references than Open Watcom Assembler, itself at AfD. The only independent source here (Hyde's web site) is used in that other article too, so if it's inadequate there, then so it is here. Pcap ping 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is older software, so not as well covered by online sources. But it is historically well known, and sources online still exist, such as: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; etc. LotLE×talk 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a86 is not at all well covered by sources, but given that it's covered in the x86 Assembly Language FAQ, it's definitely notable, if no longer widely used. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, pending a flag for expert attention and probably look for a place to merge this too. Software from the 1980s and early 1990s may well be reliably sourced to old FAQ documents and other self-published and semi-informal sources. Not sure that we need a separate article for each such package that exists. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Computers have been around for decades. Books have been around even longer. If the only sources available are coming from school websites and faqs.org then I'm not convinced of the notability here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... so by this reasoning would we delete Windows 1.0? What about MS-DOS? Just a thought. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know that we would not, because there is ample sourcing available for both. JBsupreme (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But wouldn't you consider that the links provided are adequate sourcing? I am familiar with a few of them, in particular the alt.lang.asm FAQ, which is widely cited and respected. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Few online resources exist for it because it was popular before the Internet use was common. It does have a few book/magazine mentions. It's worth improving. rCX (talk) 23:10, 2 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.