Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBIM

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 merge to Building information modeling. After two relistings, merge seems the best solution DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBIM

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

I am just not finding sources that aren't primary in nature. The article is vague at best, and without secondary verification, notability is far from established. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources. Berlotti (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but those seem to either be primary sources, commercial links, websites talking about BIM but not OpenBIM, or similar. They don't really establish notability by being a reliable source covering the topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Building information modeling: this is not a software or a product; instead it is a niche term for a standard with an industry-wide importance. As such, it can find a place in the article about the industry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As previously suggested, I think a Selective merge of this topic into Building information modeling is the best option Paul W (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2012 (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.