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) Based on the GNG evidence provided at [1] and related pages, I am willing to change my vote to keep. As a native French speaker, I can vouch for the validity of all the sources, but the ones I can see that are specifically relevant to asserting notability are La Presse, Québec Science, Sud-Ouest, Le monde informatique and L'hebdo Magazine. I am however uncomfortable with the conflict of interest and consequent level of involvement of the editor, but AfD being content-related, this is not really a valid concern. That being said, the article needs cleanup specifically with regards to over citation in some areas, lack of citations in others, some impression of puffery in the way the awards are mentioned, and probably too many technical details in the Mobile Robots section. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constuctive comments. I will review te sources in the coming week, and will try to streamline mobile robots to make it sound clearer, and less technical.Canadiansteve (talk) 08:59, 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 ([2]) 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]
Striked comments. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La presse has mentionned Robotics Design before. So has journal de montreal. That they are in regards to something the company created two patens for is a bonus. These are the media sources that mention Robotics Design and they MOST CERTAINLY are not "all written by Robotics Design's people" http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/assets/Uploads/PDF-content/InThePress/AL13Interview.pdf

Note that artilces written in German have not been included here, and will be posted when I finish the page in German, and the website, too.

The fact that most articles don't mention Robotics Design is implied notability. They mention what it contributes to society, which is a lot, making it notable.

As for a mojor re-write, fantasic. Tell me what needs to be re-written, or what is not neutral. That is no reason for deletion. And to call all these other media sources other than Sudwest non-notable is a grave insult indeed.

This technology was nominated for national awards, and was notminated for more in two categories recently. The company is notable, the things it does are notable, and the things it makes are notable and do notable things. The only argument you have is the COI, which is not grounds for deletion, it is grounds for clean-up, a project that nobody has even done, they have only said to delete it. Yes deleting it would neutralize it, but not make it neutral.

Why is it that you want this page deleted so dearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this era of Photoshop, purported references that are actually links to the subject's own website are worth less than the pixels they are displayed with. If these are legitimate press articles, then provide links to the articles on the publisher's website, not your own. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The patents protecting this technology make the most claims out of any in the insitute they were made. (at the time, definately) Is that not notable?Canadiansteve (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a patent for using a laser pointer to entertain a cat. That doesn't make the cat or the laser pointer notable. Eeekster (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one claim. If that laser could make the cat write an essay, as well as entertain, it would be. To compare a technology that is being applied to create a entire factory that builds, assembles and stores in a truck for transport without human labour to feline entertainment is an insult. You can insult well, of that you are the champ, but can you engage in a debate with evidence?Canadiansteve (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is hosted on our website, it does not mean it was done by us, by the way.Canadiansteve (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these count as significant coverage in reliable sources? http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/media-center/inthepress/presshvac/ Dream Focus 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And thank you for actually taking the time to read, it is mighty refreshing. We also have a televion source when we were featured in what was known as the world's most important conference on robotics, but we no longer host the video, though I could have it sent privately. Canadiansteve (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH - it is unusual to see so much self publicity obscuring the lack of any significant independent reporting. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement, albeit a carefully crafted —conceiled perhaps?— one. It could perhaps be a different matter if (after almost 15 years now) this would produce something relevant, which it does not seem to do. (What made me come here) - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point... I could care less if Robotics Design is the "Canadian Microsoft". Canadiansteve could show me a link in which Stephen Harper makes a speech to Parliament praising the contributions of Robotics Design and I would still say delete. Canadiansteve's lack of civility, constant badgering of those in this discussion (as well as this one) and canvassing scream out major COI. Vive le Wikipedia libre. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 11:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is not the article now? Dont hate me, I tried to respond to questions, not badger, just I don't like hearing or saying the same thing twice.Canadiansteve (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is part of the problem. The other part of the equation is the author of the article who has a serious conflict of interest. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 18:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sud Ouest is reliable source. Other major news outlets do reference them as such. [3] Not sure about the others, it hard to search for foriegn language sources, but they seem to be actual publications. Dream Focus 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be sufficient 3rd party sources within the References section to establish notability. (Maybe the company's internal News & Event and Product Spec pages could be moved to external links to allow the actual independent sources to be more visible?) AllyD (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Business makes robots that sweep industrial ducts, mostly. Despite their heroic efforts to publicize themselves, there's no showing that this particular business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture; and where the amply demonstrated possibility of conflict of interest exists, we should insist on long term significance before a business gets its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of references. Biscuittin (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No there aren't, most google links to RD have nothing to do with this company.Greglocock (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions I have rarely seen a less productive attitude than the one shown by the article's owner. Despite that wiki is not a popularity contest and the existence of this article should not really be affected by his attitude. Firstly it needs a name change to Robotics Design Inc, as Robotics Design is a field of engineering, primarily. Secondly it needs a rewrite to remove all hints of the awesomeness of the products.Greglocock (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK I gave in and gave it a quick red pencilling. IF the company satisfies notability, not a subject i have an opinion on, then it doesn't look too bad really. I don't see a COI problem, i see an attitude and ownership problem. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]