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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RecycleBot[edit]

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

This is an advert for what looks like a university in house project. It has a bombardment of sources, mainly primary or unreleated to RecycleBot. EGs. The "Purpose" section is about concepts related to the project and the sourcing has nothing to do with RecycleBot. The "Critisism" section is pure synth, building an unsourced link with unrelated sourced issues with recycling. The only section really about RecycleBot is the "History" section but the sourcing here is blogs, non reliable sources and a small ammount of industry coverage, fallang short of the audience and coverage depth asked for for products. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That specific thing (RecycleBot) doesn't seem very notable by itself, but the waste plastic extruder it links to (created by the same user) is definitely becoming more common with the rise of home 3D printers. Maybe that article could be expanded, and RecycleBot merged into an "Examples" section? —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems important. Keep either at current title or redirect, with move of material, to the linked waste plastic extruder article per Ignatzmice's suggestion above. Note there is now an AFD on the waste plastic extruder article; these two AFDs should be considered and closed together. --do ncr am 17:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems important" is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep as the topic is important and inspireable too. - Voidz (t·c) 20:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

WP:ASSERTN. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Voidz (talk · contribs) has been indef'd for spamming and sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do NOT merge: Patent spam created by now indeffed professional spammer. Suggest merge target is another spam article created by same spammer. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dominus Vobisdu. I didn't even realise that this was Voidz at it again. – Richard BB 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The articles creator, Batboys previously Recyclebotboy, appears unrelated to Voidz. Batboys soul purpose it to introduce research by the recyclebots developers. Totally different to Voidz's scattergun approach. Voidz's participation appears to be purely a retaliatory !vote against the nominator.. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2013 (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.