Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeamNG

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. Michig (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BeamNG

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

Brand new product, no claim of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Lots of sources. cilliang (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC). — cilliang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no independent sources. And I wouldn't exactly consider 3 to be "lots" even if they were independent. Fails WP:GNG - not much more to say about it. Stalwart111 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Software with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with 3 sources, considering that this is new software. Nothing has been extrapolated, everything on this page has been stated by official developers. More sources and information will be added when more official sources are offered, but as of right now, all the information needed has been taken directly from the developer's words. Person.de.fantastic (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC).— Person.de.fantastic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are misunderstanding the concern; the dilemma is not the accuracy of the information, but the importance of the topic. Wikipedia has guidelines on the notability required for a topic to deserve an article. I suggest that you review those; it will give you a better sense of what's being challenged here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Faisl all notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant RS coverage, no notability. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way affiliated with the Developers of this project, the page was fan made and there is nothing "promotional" about it, please stop spitting out lies on here cilliang (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC). — cilliang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be careful not to move other people's comments when you add your own. Stalwart111 14:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Seems more like a vanity article than a promotional article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:15, 8 August 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.