Deletion of Turbulenz

Comment: The |existence of other articles is not a good reason for keeping this article.  Each article at AFD needs to stand on its own merits.  What coverage exists to establish notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: for now. Aside from the NYT reprint I found these three articles http://gamernewsstand.com/strawdog-to-work-with-turbulenz-browser/854042/ http://www.develop-online.net/news/36685/Game-engine-brings-console-quality-to-browser http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31458/ and two more from gamesindustry.biz http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-01-06-strawdog-signs-up-for-turbulenz-browser-platform http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-11-10-turbulenz-breaks-cover-with-USD5-million-funding (which I cannot assess in terms or |reliability). Even with these, I feel it lacks significant coverage to meet  as it all revolves around the fundraising and the partnership with Strawdog, and the articles fail to review the subject in a substantive manner. It seems likely that they may become notable in the future, but not just yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I was only able to locate press releases and other primary sources. We cannot base an article on these (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)