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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks encyclopedic infromation and reads like an advertisement. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - advert, even signed off by the ObjAsm32 team CLW 08:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertisement. *drew 11:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay. New content _{Unsigned by Biterider, the only contributer to the article. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
• Stay. Very good article! I'm professional programmer and by this article I discover for self the new approach of OOP (Object Oriented Programming) implementation. Undoubtedly, this is the new way in programming world! Thanks for sharing this article. --UKV 14:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKV's only two edits are to this AFD discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OOP is hardly new. No indication that this product is particualrly notable. DES ^(talk) 19:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay. I don't think so. OOP per se is not new but it seems to be new for assembler programmers. I'm user of ObjAsm32 and in my opinion it is the best programming low level programming approach. --MarkPP 08:07, 01 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The preceding text was written by MarkPP (talk • contribs), whose only edit was this discussion. The signature links to a different user. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay. ObjAsm32 is much more than an OOP model. It combines the newest COM/DCOM, OCX servers, OleDB, etc. technology with the well known OOP model at assembler level. ObjAsm32 beats all known code in speed and size. I think that this is important enough to keep an eye on it. -- Biterider 09:30, 01 October 2005 (UTC) _{the preceding text was written by 194.230.218.109 (talk • contribs). — Kjammer ⌂ 07:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
• Stay. I agree with Biterider and have to say about exception handling (TRY/CATCH) that supported by ObjAsm32 too. It's very well facility, like modern High Level Language (C++, Java, etc.) it presents for assembler now. It's great! Thanks ObjAsm32 again! --UKV 10:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC) _{The second vote by UKV (talk • contribs) in this discussion — Kjammer ⌂ 16:54, 3 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.