Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoweBots

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoweBots[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find nothing except press releases. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amid the press releases in this search result, I see some reliable source coverage (EETimes, Waterloo Record, ITworld...) granted, some of those are trade publications though. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. The article's claim of 'industry firsts' (developed a number of industry firsts in the real-time and embedded operating system space.)
aside: Class! What function does the phrase "system space" serve in this sentence?
are unreferenced and unconfirmable in Google News and Scholar searches. I did find a new product announcement in a Books search for "Multiprocessor Toolsmiths", but nothing that suggests that they have ever had the kind of significant impact needed to make this business something you'd expect to have its own article in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note there are other industry firsts listed on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 28 March 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, J04n(talk page) 21:18, 27 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on my comments above. Talk page supports keeping, and Google News archives shows significant coverage in reliable sources. As I mentioned previously, many of those sources are trade publications, but I don't see that as a problem for WP:V and WP:RS. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:26, 3 April 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.