Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIMx


 * 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. WP:NPASR. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

BIMx

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recently released software with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Please note that the article was written by a Graphisoft employee. In the history of the article, the user stated, "This software suite has been just recently released, therefore you could not find significant coverage yet." which only supports the argument for deletion. Odie5533 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

JJózsef is not a Graphisoft employee, as the cited page confirms. Not stating that Odie5533 deliberately lies, just does not have enough time to read web pages carefully. Anyway I have never hidden my affiliations so I do not know what was the point in citing this false information here. I think the real issue is whether the software has significant coverage in reliable sources or not. Well, anyone who takes the time to read through an article before marking it for deletion would assess the coverage of this piece of software using its old name too (as it is mentioned in the article: BIMx)
 * Thank you for taking your time: JJózsef (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Virtual Building Explorer or vice versa. We don't have articles on the same topic.  This is an interation of the same software but renamed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:43, 30 September 2011 (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.