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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JO-ZERO

[edit]

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

I realize I may take some flak for taking this to AfD so soon after it was created, but I think this is a case where no amount of editing can overcome the lack of notability. Simply stated, this article is about a robot that does not appear to have received significant coverage in third-party sources that would result in its meeting WP:GNG. Although a Google search yields 42,000 hits, I've been unable to find any reliable sources. A Google news search only led to a blog post at Crunchygear.com and a handful of posts at Coolest-gadgets.com (a blog?), which I would hesitate to call a reliable source. That's problematic because notability requires verifiable evidence. I don't see it here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regardless of being a stub, it needs a source. Stubs need sources too, otherwise we cannot verify that it exists, and that it is notable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I found it so notable that I created it as a stub right away. It is an especially good robot of its kind. I was intending to add more but was very pressed for time. Perhaps when I have time to tell the full story it will satisfy notabilty guideline. Best Regards

Wikkrockiana (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the consensus here is to delete and you want to build off of this content in the future, contact one of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a long article here about it, which is a top 100 site in Japan by Alexa Ranking, and also one in a TechCrunch site. Some info is contradictory; it seems that some English sources took the name of the company rep, Nakamura to be that of the designer. Also, IREX is a pretty notable expo; here's coverage (The Telegraph) of it, although not about this particular robot. Another Japanese article here, a site owned by the same company as Mainichi Shimbun. Pcap ping 02:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese sources are reliable, and the English sources so-so. See User talk:TakuyaMurata#Robot needs your help. Pcap ping 13:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. Can the article be expanded using the Japanese sources? I've no way of knowing, mainly because I don't speak Japanese (which explains why I didn't find those articles). Looking at the references in the article, two of the three English-language sources look unreliable for sure. Robots-dreams.com and Coolest-gadgets.com both appear to be blogs. The other source is, as you noted, a TechCrunch blog; is that considered a reliable source? I searched the WP:RSN archives, but what I found was inconclusive. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:RS does not exclude foreign language sources, and the English ones are just a summary of the Japanese ones anyway. Pcap ping 18:05, 18 January 2010 (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.