Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotics Design

Robotics Design

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

Advertisement for non-notable company; heavy COI involvement. Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had this debate before, and it was crushed, because it implies that a company whose technology has been used to make tens of millions of dollars, is used internationally, has many media references, is quoted in masters and PHD thesis, has a technology which predates most modular robotic technologies and is far more efficient than even the newest ones, and is most certainly used in far more products sold, rather than toys or research robots, is not notable. You have no reason for the deletion other than the COI, which is only a problem if there is a non neutral point of view, as stated in Wikipedia rules. If I live in Canada, and state that it is the best country in the world, that is a COI. If I live in Canada and state that it is a country, that is not. This page has been up for years, and may not, or will it be deleted for your absurdities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not have this discussion again. You may read all about it at the talk page of Robotics Design. If this is an attempt to scare me into caving for ANAT technology, you are a detriment to wikipedia. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Le Journal de Montréal and La Presse (the two largest newspapers in the city) have absolutely no mention of it, and the references cited are either associated with the subject or are about related topics, such as BIXI. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else who said the same, or a major rewrite to at least attempt to sound neutral. (I have no idea why this is relevant to me, and have not been an active editor for a long time, but apparently my opinion was wanted.) --scgtrp (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Depth of coverage meets WP:CORPDEPTH, see references section in article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except most of the acceptable references (e.g. third-party) don't even mention Robotics Design. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, save for the "awards", only ref no. 8 ([1]) is truly third-party and of significance, and nowhere does the article mention Robotic Designs. All the other references are either written by Robotics Design's people, save for another one which is specialized coverage (e.g. École de technologie supérieures). Hardly depth of coverage. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]