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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANAT technology[edit]

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

This term appears only to be used by a single company. I cannot find anything to confirm notability. References given are all traceable back to that company. The article appears to have been created by a marketing representative of that company. noq (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that all the references and nearly all the search hits seem to come from the manufacturer, the notability of the subject is not established. The only information in the article on the subject is a brief "Overview" that could be in the manufacturer's article Robotics Design. If there were some independent sources and if the manufacturer provided some quality pictures and information, the article may be saved, but both of those steps seem unlikely and essentially the article serves as a page to hold links to the manufacturer's website. The article may be a recreation of ANAT Technology which was deleted ("G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion") on 8 September 2009. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:PRODUCT requirements for notability.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent company Robotics Design. They seem notable enough at first glance. This technological term, even if used outside the company, will likely not generate the type of sources needed for an article here - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please everyone, give me more time. I am adding a new media reference to this technology almost daily, and i assure you that this technology is notable, and does deserve its own page to improve accesability to the information it presents. Our robots and the technology behind them are studied in universities such as ÉTS, making this article an informational source for students and an enhancement to their educational experience. As for pictures, ive been having a bit of trouble with volunteers claiming that my images are possibly unfree and deleting them, but i continue to fight, and you will all have a fine selection to admire by after christmas. The information presented my sound a bit technical, and that is currently being asessed, but you must understand that this is a completely new technology in robotics where certian terms and language used have not been accepted into mainstream language, so it might take a while before the words exist to fully demonstrate these robots and their abilities in detail. A 60 second video without text available on the home page of Robotics Design Inc. (http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/) helps provide a general understanding of the technology, and might be able to help you appreciate this article more fully. If you have something to add or you want something specific re-written, pleas inform me and that it how i will be able to make improvements and show you exactly why this article should be here. the page Robotics Design was almost deleted after it was posted, and had others not given me specific problems to resolve it may have been taken down, and a fine addition to wikipedia would not be here today. In the end, i am asking for your patience and your critism in order to make this article a useful information source as it is meant to be. Work with me, ask me for what you need, and we'll get it done right.

Canadiansteve (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and for references i already put three where the technology and products are mentionned in known magazines, am i to understand that even for now three media references is not enough? Perhaps if i had five magaiznes taking about the technology, would that change everything? I read things on wikipedia half as notable as this technology with only 1 or 2 sources and they dont need a seperate page to print out warnings about the article. If i get one more magazine article before the end of the year, would that satisfy everyone or should i get two? you have to give me more specifics or everyone will be running in circles resolving nothing. thank you for your understanding.Canadiansteve (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that you have not been involved in creating? - See WP:OR. Everything so far seems promotional - and your job title as head of marketing for this company seems to tie in with that. Wikipedia is not meant to be a marketing tool - please do not use it as such. Are there any publications in peer reviewed literature? noq (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material added to this article is meant for educational purposes, and is not made to serve Robotics Design Inc.'s marketing efforts in any way. Most of the information was posted from my account, but much of it was made under my supervision by university students, engineers, and others interested and knowledgable of the company. After the christmas vacation, we will have several university students available to make posts and share their knowledge on the topic. Many ÉTS alumni made their master's and PHDs writing about and working with this technology, and it is well known by educators, students and professionals who take interest in the robotics industry. This technology represents a new architecture in robotics; a new way of putting them together and designing them. This article will serve as an informational source to the world, a more acessable freeflow of information on what many beileive to be robotic architecture of the future. And i know very well that wikipedia is not a marketing tool noq, please do not make unfounded accusations. Perhaps if you were to tell me which part of my article seems to serve only as a promotion, i could make some changes, but pointing fingers and fighting never did solve anything. Give me specifics, I apreciate critism, even if it is negative, but you have to give me more to go on then "its bad".

Canadiansteve (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No original research - either by you or under your supervision, Reliable sources - not instigated by you, Verifiability - again something that did not originate by you or your company, notability - as defined in Wikipedia. You make big claims but do not provide independent sources to back them up. You say, "Well known by educators, students and professionals" but provide no evidence for that. Similarly, "What many believe to be robotic architecture of the future" but no sources, where are the papers discussing this written by people not associated with your company.noq (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2009 (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.