Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwinbots (2nd nomination)

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. Secret ^account 01:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinbots

(Find video game sources: "Darwinbots" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable program, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The subject of this article appears to have no reliably sourced coverage on the web of any kind; certainly not the in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources needed to meet the guidelines. In fact, the results from a Google search are mainly restricted to download sites, primary sources, or blogs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the previous AfD is highly unconvincing; nothing in that would satisfy notability guidelines in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to just be another game from Windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finealt (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reason to delete, because every Windows game is just another game for Windows. You have to primarily address the general notability guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The ScienceBoard review appears good though not too in-depth and the source looks solid; the submitter has relevant field credentials and over 460 site posts and it appears all articles are editor approved before being published. The Libero newspaper piece looks like a machine translation from one of their review columns perhaps, but the content isn't very in-depth. If there were some 4 sources like this, I would consider GNG passed, but I don't think just 2 satisfy in-depth criteria and thus presumed notability. Only other substantial search hits are either primary, generic descriptions or forum posts and discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not enough sources for an article. There's the Science Advisory Board, which is more than minor, but short. I didn't find anything else I'd call significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:58, 15 December 2013 (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.