Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwinbots (2nd nomination)
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
— user:Hellknowz, 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:VG (Wikipedia:Notability)