Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBVE (3rd nomination)

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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBVE

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

Open source package with no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single software package and this one simply doesn't belong. We have Wikia for stuff like trainspotter software. Biker Biker (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete There is a somewhat in-depth review of openBVE at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, some in-depth information about the program at railsimroutes.net, and a one paragraph review at TechnoZoom. I think all of these are secondary sources. Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a reliable source and TechnoZoom and railsimroutes.net look reliable. ~~Right now, it looks like a marginal keep.~~ Update: Looking more closely at the railsimroutes.net website, there is a connection to OpenVBE, so the source cannot be considered independent. Given that, we only have one independent RS and the topic does not meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. Thanks goes to DreamGuy for encouraging me to take a second look. Mark viking (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Should article BVE Trainsim on related predecessor software also be deleted? Microsoft Train Simulator, Microsoft Train Simulator 2, and Trainz would also fall into this arena. GrayMace (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources listed above, only Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a chance of qualifying for consideration of WP:GNG. The other two aren't reliable and one paragraph is clearly trivial coverage. We need *multiple* independent, *reliable* secondary sources giving *non-trivial* coverage of the topic in order to justify having an article. Looks like an interesting game. It might qualify someday if other sources take notice of it, but it's not up to us to make others notice it. Similar software that doesn't meet WP:GNG rules should also have their articles deleted for that reason, not just because they're similar types of games. The Microsoft games seem like thye'd very easily have multiple qualifying sources. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. There seems to be very little coverage of this piece of software in reliable sources. — daranz [ t ] 17:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Open source software will always be at a disadvantage in establishing notability since commercial software will have a company website and will attract more independent reviews that can be used to establish notability. One feature of openBVE is the fact that users can create their own content and, as a result, there are a large number of community websites, in several countries, set up to share this content. Does a large number of users websites in several countries indicate notability?

I can offer a few more references for notability: http://vr-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/openbve-has-arrived.html , https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/natty/openbve/ , http://sourceforge.net/projects/openbve/reviews/

There was a problem with openBVE in 2012 in that the main programmer left the project and closed the official website and user forum. These have now been re-established, but it seems that some openBVE users have been trying to use the Wikipedia article to provide information during this period of uncertainty. One user HijaKuda opened an Wikipedia account on 25th September 2012 and since then has almost completely rewritten the article in that it has become a list of features and a list of external links. He has does not seem to understand Wikipedia policies on these matters or has chosen to ignore then. He has not contributed to any talk page to explain his views. This editing removed the references that gave the article notability, which led to a refimprove tag being added.

The constant edits and reversions of the same material have brought the article to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors who have now proposed deletion.

My view is that the article should be kept, but reverted back to the version of 13th August 2012.The openBVE users who have added inappropriate information since this date should be asked to put this on the user website instead.Chris1515 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's some coverage in Eurogamer as well, though I realize that might not count as "significant" coverage. -Thibbs (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2013 (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.