Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTASC


 * 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. Feel free to renominate for deletion or be bold. SarahStierch (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

MTASC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Lots of self-published blogs about it, brief mentions in books such as these, and a quick walkthrough of using it here... not sure if that cuts it. -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 19:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the only native open source Actionscript compiler. Being the 'only' open source, native Actionscript compiler confers notability. scope_creep talk 18:23  29 October 2013  (UTC)
 * Just a comment: Not sure that follows. Being the only one of something does not guarantee notability (remember, everything is "unique" in some way or another). Notability means reliable independent sources. The article only has sources from the web site that promotes it. This is not my area so will remain neutral, but wonder if it is that important to Actionscript then why does that article not mention it? Might be worth one sentence in that article, or a mention in an article on the company that makes it, except that company might also not meet notability guidelines. W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a very specialist piece of software and your not going to find a ton of third party sources in the manner you would expect from perhaps a famous person, a well known invention or a biography. It will be used by perhaps 50-100k flash software developers in the world, and almost none of them will write a review about it, because Actionscript is so old, everybody who uses it, knows it and knows it's capabilities. Also it's a native compiler. There is a whole bundle of them who do cross compilation of some sort or another which means it stands out from the crowd. It deserves an article. scope_creep talk 12:51 30 October 2013  (UTC)


 * Lean to Keep then, since generally in favor of flexibility in the rules. Of course work on the article to cite whatever sources are available would help prevent another challenge. There are so many that really do need to be deleted, we should generally give this a benefit of the doubt. W Nowicki (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning merge Could merge to article on its successor Haxe. Not 100% sure this is non-notable but it's questionable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not reveal any such coverage, only blogs and forums.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What search did you do exactly? scope_creep talk 23:06 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I had searched 5 pages deep in google results for 'MTASC', and checked google news (no hits). Because your question raised the possibility that that search was missing sources, I searched again 5 pages deep for 'Motion-Twin ActionScript 2 Compiler'. This yields 3 google books results: 1. The Essential Guide to Flash CS4 AIR Development by Marco Casario - 2008 - has only an incidental mention of MTASC, 2.'Mtasc' by Jesse Russell (Editor), Ronald Cohn (Editor) is a dump of wikipedia content. 3. The Essential Guide to Open Source Flash Development by John Grden, ‎Patrick Mineault, ‎Aral Balkan - 2008 - has 2 pages (229,230), but they are written by an author of MTASC, so not an independent source, and not useful for establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2013 (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.