Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepper (robot)

Pepper (robot)

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

Aside from a short mention in the znet article, doesn't seem to meet our GNG criteria. Suggest merging whatever small blurb here into the company's article (which is almost nothing). Shadowjams (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; er, the zdnet article is certainly not the only mention. A quick search revealed sources from Reuters, BBC, NBC News, CNN, CNET, PCMag, IEEE Spectrum, Computerworld, Gulf News, TechCrunch, and The Verge, just to name a few without including non-English sources. These are all dated around the same time due to the robot just being announced a few days ago (and presumably based off of the same announcement), but there's significant coverage to make it notable, and plenty more to include the current stub. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SuperHamster. BBC, CNN and and PCMag on their own would be enough to convince me of notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Robotics-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commercial ad for a product that does not yet exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Cédric at Aldebaran. Beside the media coverage, the product does exist, as it's being used by Softbank in their shops [1]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — It's only six-days-old and it's already got coverage by zdnet, The Verge, & Japan Times. One would expect, if it actually goes on sale sometime around Feb 2015, there will be substantially more coverage at that time. It leans a little bit towards promotional, but it also is of encyclopedic interest. Meanwhile, there already seems to be enough coverage to keep the stub per WP:BASIC. — Who R you? Talk 17:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]