Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BaseMind

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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BaseMind

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

The subject of the article is a recently released software program that fails to to meet the relevant notability guideline; I cannot find the requisite significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The program does not yet even have any ratings in the Mac App Store where it is being sold. Biogeographist (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, WP:TOOSOON. As a new article I tagged it in the hope WP:RSes would be forthcoming, but it appears not. Doing a basic WP:BEFORE, most web hits are for a Minecraft skin and I get zero GNews hits. But perhaps the company has good WP:RS-standard coverage in the clippings file, and I look forward to it being added - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is seriously way WP:TOOSOON. There are no independent sources available. The creation by SPA with edits like this points out that the intent is to promote the software. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2016 (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.