Deletion of Darwinbots (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 Wikipedia:Search engine test|search engine test or have meaningful hits in a /RS|video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. File:Eye close font awesome.svg|14px|link=user:czar/watching|I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response&nbsp;czar&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:IS||WP:42||WP:VG)

Comment: as not passing  with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as /RS. The http://www.scienceboard.org/resources/links.asp?linkId=3716 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 http://digilander.libero.it/darwinbots/introen.html 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. —&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:VG)