Deletion of OpenBVE (3rd nomination)

Comment: There is a somewhat in-depth review of openBVE at http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/22/openbve-the-sim-now-approaching-platform-pc/ Rock, Paper, Shotgun, some in-depth information about the program at http://www.railsimroutes.net/openbve/index.php railsimroutes.net, and a one paragraph review at http://news.tecnozoom.it/applicazioni-web/openbve-ottimo-simulatore-di-treni-post-26247.html 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  notability guidelines. Thanks goes to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Of the sources listed above, only Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a chance of qualifying for consideration of . 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)