Deletion of Octomatics

Comment: who uses this in practice other than the article's author? , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:NOR||WP:BOLLOCKS)

Comment: as non-notable trivia. The notability bar is ''significant coverage in reliable independent sources'', which this does not meet (perhaps because, as Mike Rosoft suggests, no-one actually uses it?). Maybe it's my nasty mind, but I can't help suspecting a hint of  behind this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: None of those sources are |reliable, and thus cannot be used to establish notability.  The only one that isn't obviously a blog or self-published website is the digitalus.co.nz link, and even it looks bloggy to me.  I'd agree to using them as references once notability has been established, but someone'd have to find a ''reliable'' source for that purpose first
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The claim of  is definitely incorrect. Something covered by multiple news sites doesn't fall under that category
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)

Comment: as non-notable and . I was unable to locate a single source with this term in any of the library databases I have access to, including the complete Books in Print
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)