Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VEX Robotics Design System

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VEX Robotics Design System[edit]

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

This article fails the general notability guideline. It has no independent, reliable sources. Sunfoo (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article seems reasonable for overall inclusion. I have quibbles with the text of it (particularly the bit mentioning pricing), but a robotics system targeted at young people that seems to have multiple organizations using its system for competitions involving many hundreds of schools meets any rational definition of notability. The fact that it has come to the notice of NASA and a number of high-level offices of state governments seems to corroborate that. There is no large corpus of scholarly writing on this system, but that's to be expected of a production product. I would definitely keep this, but flag the article for a more objective perspective.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now maybe until a better article can be made as I found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better sourcing unless someone else can take care of this. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, the argument by the ip is not based on guidelines. Sources do not reveal in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 17 October 2015 (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.