Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BCore100 Microcontroller Board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BCore100 Microcontroller Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability other than self-published sources --Guy Macon (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, per nom. We've already deleted boards like the Dwengo that do have some community outside their manufacturer. This one seems to be purely manufacturer-based. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Robotics magazine review mentioned in the article is an independent, reliable-looking source, and is possibly marginally in-depth. It was the only reliable secondary source I could find on the microcontroller board. There are a number of projects out there using the board, but unfortunately none from what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. At this point, the topic doesn't quite meet notability guidelines. When further reliable sources become available, recreation of this article is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough widespread coverage to show the WP:GNG criteria has been meet and this is borderline WP:NOTJARGON. Mkdwtalk 07:12, 28 January 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.