Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEST Robotics


 * 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 keep. Consensus was keep, especially after the improvements made by Sam Sailor. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 00:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

BEST Robotics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails the general notability guideline. It has no independent, reliable sources. Sunfoo (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This page is proposed for deletion because it lacks 'notability' but I found it very helpful when investigating robotics programs for youth educational. The information could be moved to the BEST web site, but that would decrease its' availability to people like me. I don't need 'authoritative' sources, just hints about how to look more thoroughly. This article served that purpose grandly. I suggest that the removal be rescinded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoerTex (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Your comment is not based on Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Wikipedia is not for promotion (WP:NOTPROMOTION) and all articles must be verifiable (WP:V). Please read those policies before commenting again. Thank you, Sunfoo (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but overhaul. A Google search gives lots of results at the state level, rather than national competitions, but I think there's enough to rebuild the article from independent sources. The key is to rebuild: in its current state, the article reads like a rehash of the BEST website and not a neutral encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have zapped the link farm and the mission statement; I have added three cite books. There's plenty of sources out there, subject meets WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.