Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFMOD

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 no consensus. This debate suffered from a low participation rate. No prejudice against re-nominating this in 2 or 3 months if convincing sources cannot be found. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

UFMOD

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

UFMOD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No way satisfying WP:NSOFTWARE, unable to find any RS while looking for WP:Before Chirota (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep As far as I know, the uFMOD is the only XM player written in pure assembly. It's the first one available for FreeBSD and KolibriOS. Maybe there are other reasons why it's notable. I'm still researching the topic. Some sources are so old that they are available through web archive only. An interesting 15yo discussion, which mentions uFMOD as one of the reasons why assembly programming is still alive. Notice that the people in this discussion are really famous. For example, there is Randall Hyde...
  Another source mentions that uFMOD is the preferred option in demo scene and gamedev when the size limit is 115K or less.
  Another interesting source is WASM.RU. It is long dead, but still available through web archive.
  I've found over 20 citations on Pouet.
  AC97SND, the built-in audio player for KolibriOS, uses uFMOD to play XM files. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Blogs, web forums, and USENET postings are not reliable sources. This does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • sudonull is an IT news site, not a blog; kolibri-n.org is a news site about KolibriOS, probably the oldest one, known since 2007. There are references to this site in the official kolibrios.org website. WASM.RU was one of the very first low level programming sites, older than the Wikipedia. I can't imagine more reliable sources. Obviously there are no articles about demoscene or low level programming on CNN, NYT, Bloomberg. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've been digging and finding more interesting sources. This one is a review published in Russian in 2011. It's interesting because the reviewer is saying that uFMOD is the only XM library written in assembly. He also mentions support for x64.
  Regarding that article in SudoNull mentioned earlier, I found that it was originally written in Russian and published in Habr in 2014. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  More blog postings. Please see WP:RS. Self published sites and user generated content, even if they style themselves 'news sites', are not the kind of sources we need to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not claiming that Habr is a reliable source. That reference is useful to identify the author of the original article: real name, address, other publications and so forth. On the other hand, I don't understand why Sudo Null is not a reliable news site. They appear as a reference in many articles in the Wikipedia. They are not self publishing because the article was originally published in a different site, in a different language. Even if you don't like Sudo Null, there are still other references like WASM and Kolibri N10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.KBAHT (talk • contribs)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I found another interesting source. This one was published in VR-Online, the website founded by Mikhail Flenov, the author of many programming books. Note that these articles were published as an electronic magazine, including cover, editorial, serial numeration, from 2000 to 2012. Apparently they stopped publishing in March 2012. This is their article about uFMOD:

http://www.vr-online.ru/content/xm-player-494 Dr.KBAHT (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the fact that this is written in "pure assembly" has any bearing on its notability. Please explain this a bit better, Dr.KBAHT. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that's exactly what Randall Hyde et al were discussing in that mailing list 15 years ago (the first reference I posted above). Personally I don't think that writing a big project in assembly is notable per se. However, I do think that a multiplatform project written in pure assembly is notable. Moreover, the fact that it was the first XM player available for BSD and Kolibri and the only static player for Linux seems rather notable as well. Based on the other references, I think it's also the smallest XM player. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • On Wikipedia, especially in deletion discussions, when someone says 'notable' they mean that it meets the Wikipedia's notability guideline, which you can find at WP:N. In brief, that means multiple reliable sources are available. This AFD has become quite confusing because you have been filling it up with personal observations and links (some of which you have said yourself are not reliable sources) that don't have anything to do with Wikipedia's definition of notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The definition of notability is very simple. WP:N defines notability as the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources. For example, is WASM.RU a suitable, independent, reliable source? There are many direct references to WASM.RU in Google.books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=wasm.ru The WASM community pioneered the Zen Programming subculture. If you google for "History of one byte by Dmitry Galuscenko" you will find that it was originally published in WASM. Another suitable, independent and reliable source is Kolibri N10. They are the official Kolibri magazine. The same goes about VR-Online magazine. Some of their editions are still available for download in PDF. You can also find their books on Apple books and other bookstores. I didn't say that the other sources are not reliable. I just didn't find enough facts to prove their reliability. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
        • No, self published web sites such as WASM.RU are not reliable sources. Even if they are styled as magazines(VR-Online) or as an official publication of a niche operating system(Kolibri N10). They must have independent editorial processes and a reputation for fact checking. Reliable sources are things like newspaper articles, peer reviewed journals, or books from major academic publishers. - MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
          • FYI, one of the WASM editors was Kris Kaspersky (RIP). You can keep insisting in selfediting, lack of fact checking and peer reviews when referring to all those guys and even qualify their work as "niche". I'm off this discussion. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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.