Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwinbots

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 no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinbots

Only independent source is an interview with Biota; I'd prefer to see multiple coverage as suggested by WP:Notability guidelines. Contested prod earlier in the year with notability concerns, but contesting editor then admits a lack of secondary sources. I'd be happy if someone can find further significant coverage but I'm drawing a blank. Marasmusine (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: This looks interesting and potentially promising, but as of now, both subject notability and source reliability are issues. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per following comments. Article looks promising. Deletion would be premature. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: First, I'm the article author, so I'm biased :) Second, the correct home page is Darwinbots.com. Third, notability is established with the interview on Biota.org (notability doesn't need multiple sources, though they are preferred). Last, if I'm outvoted, I would recommend merging the article as it stands in to a broader article on artificial life simulators per: Wiki policy instead of outright deletion. --Numsgil (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another source and added it to the article: Darwinbots review. Is this enough sources to confirm notability? --Numsgil (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that deletions are not granted by voting, i.e. how many users say "Keep" versus how many users say "Delete." Deletions are granted from judging from the arguments put forth by the users. If there is no rough consensus on deletion, then the article is not deleted. MuZemike (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly. For more information on how this process works, see WP:CON. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That review is actually self-published. It's a reader review on a public website. Still, I think this article deserves a chance to assert its notability. Keep looking! Randomran (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the review is fine, as to submit a review you need to be a member (which entails being employed full-time in science research) and it must be approved by the editorial staff. Marasmusine (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial oversight is key for a source to be reliable. So that helps. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's substantial and independent. In terms of reliablity, it looks promising with editorial oversight on review submissions [1]. Marasmusine (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent coverage --T-rex 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Biota.org and scienceboard.org look independent enough to me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (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.