Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Robotics Research Network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- European Robotics Research Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable network. It exists. They organize meetings. However, there are no independent sources about the network. Article was de-PRODded by User:Chaosdruid, who posted on the article talk page saying that there are loads of Gbook and Gnews hits. However, from the links this editor posted, it is evident that all these are just in-passing mentions of this network. While some of the involved researchers may be notable, as well as some of the subjects that people in this network collaborate on, I don't see the network itself being notable. Crusio (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated on the talk page, a quick Google book search produced these: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. From a Google news search: The Times, Fox News, The BBC and The Telegraph It shows at least four independent international news sources: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability". As for the matter of "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability" I cannot agree that these sources are trivial. Some could be considered incidental, but WP:ORG states:
- Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards
- The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
- Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
- I would say that those have been met, though I would have to do more than the five minute searches I did already to provide more info. I am in the middle of a large copy-edit so will get around to doing that, if it proves necessary, in the next 24 hours.
- I notice that you have not informed the Robotics project, I will do that for you. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are certainly respected sources, however, as I said on the article talk page and in the nom, all of them are about other subjects/people and just mention this network in-passing. As for the Robotics project, I thought that all projects (and certainly one on this subject) were using Article Alertbot and got notified automatically about AfDs, PRODs, etc concerning them. --Crusio (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we fall under the auspices of "Technology" and do not get our own at the moment. It is a situation I intend to remedy once the GOCE drive is over at the end of the month. We did get them under articlealertbot until the latest version after the long hiatus. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Looks like it is finally working properly again, using talk page tags so that we get informed. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Concur with much of what user Crusio says in the nomination. An organization, yes, but notable? No. The independent sources presented so far that discuss the ogranization are not sufficient: they tend to discuss it very indirectly. --Noleander (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean that you are going to ignore "Organizations are usually notable" and claim that the organisation does not meet the two criteria? (which I have posted above): Scope is national or international; and "Infomation ... can be verified by multiple ... sources" - as shown above, The Times, The BBC, Fox News and The Telegraph? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The article needs better references. However, it seems that based on different search results thr notability criteria is probably met. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we need independent third party references to published sources about the network. Not references to materials published by participants in the network. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the previous comment, did you look at The Times, BBC, Fox News or The Telegraph links? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I did look at those references. They're fine references for proving that this topic exists; they should certainly be added to the article if it is kept. But since they only mention the topic in passing, rather than containing substantial content about the topic, they do not constitute evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, as per the user above you, how do you see that as not fitting into parameter 2 of the notability I have quoted above? "2 Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.". I am a little confused as how people are not understanding that both those parameters are fulfilled, yet they are still saying delete. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The news articles aren't about the organization and its activities they mention someone who is identified as being connected to the organisation as having an opinion on the another subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "can be verified", not "has an article about them" Chaosdruid (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone being identified with the organisation is not verification of the organization and its activities. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you didn't read them then: Ref 1 - "The analysis culminated at a meeting recently held in Genoa by the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) that examined the problems likely to arise as robots become smarter, faster, stronger and ubiquitous." and Ref 3 "The European Robotics Research Network is also drawing up a set of guidelines on the use of robots. This ethical roadmap has been assembled by researchers who believe that robotics will soon come under the same scrutiny as disciplines such as nuclear physics and Bioengineering." and Ref 4 - "The initial findings of one such group, the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) were unveiled last summer, and went as far as raising the question of the ethics of robot sexuality, and whether sex-toy robots should be developed." Chaosdruid (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make statements about what I have or have not done without direct evidence. I have read the article. I have read the WP:GNG. I have read WP:ORG. I have not read the references in the page in question, since there are none, only a link to the homepage. I have read the four references posted here. I do not believe the article in question meets either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, so my position is still Delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you didn't read them then: Ref 1 - "The analysis culminated at a meeting recently held in Genoa by the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) that examined the problems likely to arise as robots become smarter, faster, stronger and ubiquitous." and Ref 3 "The European Robotics Research Network is also drawing up a set of guidelines on the use of robots. This ethical roadmap has been assembled by researchers who believe that robotics will soon come under the same scrutiny as disciplines such as nuclear physics and Bioengineering." and Ref 4 - "The initial findings of one such group, the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) were unveiled last summer, and went as far as raising the question of the ethics of robot sexuality, and whether sex-toy robots should be developed." Chaosdruid (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone being identified with the organisation is not verification of the organization and its activities. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "can be verified", not "has an article about them" Chaosdruid (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The news articles aren't about the organization and its activities they mention someone who is identified as being connected to the organisation as having an opinion on the another subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, as per the user above you, how do you see that as not fitting into parameter 2 of the notability I have quoted above? "2 Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.". I am a little confused as how people are not understanding that both those parameters are fulfilled, yet they are still saying delete. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I did look at those references. They're fine references for proving that this topic exists; they should certainly be added to the article if it is kept. But since they only mention the topic in passing, rather than containing substantial content about the topic, they do not constitute evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the previous comment, did you look at The Times, BBC, Fox News or The Telegraph links? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article contains no third party coverage, and the news articles mentioned previously only mention the subject in passing. This fails WP:GNG. Sandstein 09:44, 13 August 2011 (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.