Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBVE
- 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, with no prejudice against re-creation if the subject becomes notable in the future. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenBVE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable, all references are to project's own website except one link to Microsoft .NET framework. The article currently appears to be getting used to advertise the project. ZoeL (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable sources. Alexius08 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable sources and lack of notability. 87.123.94.103 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE RETAINED. openBVE is new freeware which has great importance for the train simming community. The UK's leading exponent, Anthony Bowden, has independently written a guide to its installation here: http://www.railsimroutes.net/openbve/
I agree that the article needs to be rewritten, and needs better citations from third party sources, such as Mr Bowden, but these will come with time.
My apologies, I don't know how to properly mark up my contribution, but wanted to make the point in order to save this article.
Regards eezypeazy@eezypeazy.co.uk Eezypeazy (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should be retained. openBVE is relatively new freeware and therefore may need more time for more other sources/links/reliable secondary sources to appear. Joeyfjj (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case the article can be recreated as and when reliable sources become available, wikipedia is not the place for promoting new software. ZoeL (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons stated in nomination and for lack of reliable sources. ZoeL (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (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.