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. v/r - T P 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design

[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable company; heavy COI involvement. Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had this debate before, and it was crushed, because it implies that a company whose technology has been used to make tens of millions of dollars, is used internationally, has many media references, is quoted in masters and PHD thesis, has a technology which predates most modular robotic technologies and is far more efficient than even the newest ones, and is most certainly used in far more products sold, rather than toys or research robots, is not notable. You have no reason for the deletion other than the COI, which is only a problem if there is a non neutral point of view, as stated in Wikipedia rules. If I live in Canada, and state that it is the best country in the world, that is a COI. If I live in Canada and state that it is a country, that is not. This page has been up for years, and may not, or will it be deleted for your absurdities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not have this discussion again. You may read all about it at the talk page of Robotics Design. If this is an attempt to scare me into caving for ANAT technology, you are a detriment to wikipedia. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Le Journal de Montréal and La Presse (the two largest newspapers in the city) have absolutely no mention of it, and the references cited are either associated with the subject or are about related topics, such as BIXI. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Based on the GNG evidence provided at [1] and related pages, I am willing to change my vote to keep. As a native French speaker, I can vouch for the validity of all the sources, but the ones I can see that are specifically relevant to asserting notability are La Presse, Québec Science, Sud-Ouest, Le monde informatique and L'hebdo Magazine. I am however uncomfortable with the conflict of interest and consequent level of involvement of the editor, but AfD being content-related, this is not really a valid concern. That being said, the article needs cleanup specifically with regards to over citation in some areas, lack of citations in others, some impression of puffery in the way the awards are mentioned, and probably too many technical details in the Mobile Robots section. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constuctive comments. I will review te sources in the coming week, and will try to streamline mobile robots to make it sound clearer, and less technical.Canadiansteve (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else who said the same, or a major rewrite to at least attempt to sound neutral. (I have no idea why this is relevant to me, and have not been an active editor for a long time, but apparently my opinion was wanted.) --scgtrp (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Depth of coverage meets WP:CORPDEPTH, see references section in article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Except most of the acceptable references (e.g. third-party) don't even mention Robotics Design. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
::In fact, save for the "awards", only ref no. 8 ([2]) is truly third-party and of significance, and nowhere does the article mention Robotic Designs. All the other references are either written by Robotics Design's people, save for another one which is specialized coverage (e.g. École de technologie supérieures). Hardly depth of coverage. — CharlieEchoTango — 02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striked comments. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La presse has mentionned Robotics Design before. So has journal de montreal. That they are in regards to something the company created two patens for is a bonus. These are the media sources that mention Robotics Design and they MOST CERTAINLY are not "all written by Robotics Design's people" http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/assets/Uploads/PDF-content/InThePress/AL13Interview.pdf

Note that artilces written in German have not been included here, and will be posted when I finish the page in German, and the website, too.

The fact that most articles don't mention Robotics Design is implied notability. They mention what it contributes to society, which is a lot, making it notable.

As for a mojor re-write, fantasic. Tell me what needs to be re-written, or what is not neutral. That is no reason for deletion. And to call all these other media sources other than Sudwest non-notable is a grave insult indeed.

This technology was nominated for national awards, and was notminated for more in two categories recently. The company is notable, the things it does are notable, and the things it makes are notable and do notable things. The only argument you have is the COI, which is not grounds for deletion, it is grounds for clean-up, a project that nobody has even done, they have only said to delete it. Yes deleting it would neutralize it, but not make it neutral.

Why is it that you want this page deleted so dearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this era of Photoshop, purported references that are actually links to the subject's own website are worth less than the pixels they are displayed with. If these are legitimate press articles, then provide links to the articles on the publisher's website, not your own. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for implying that I am a liar, a plagiarist, a copyright infringer, and a journalistic hoax. I wrote the article and do whatever I can for this and other companies for 12 dollars an hour in my free time after class, and I really look forward to people encouraging me for my work which I do to improve the country I love and the society around me. Some magazines do not offer a online version of every page of their magazine without payment, but sections like this have been approved to be hosted, if the company does it for free. Ill let you trash my reputation as an honest, well meaning person all you want, mister, but do not insult the reputation of the company, who deals with other companies where integrity is a critical factor is doing any kind of business that will improve North America. I could take the page and host it somewhere else if you like, or you can go buy the magazine, and then not scan it or put it anywhere because that would be copyright infringement because you do not have approval from the magazine, and that would prove to you that I didn't defraud a magazine and the world in regards to me truly writing an article. P.s. I do not get paid anything to write articles on wikipedia, nor does this mean that that the articles on the website are copyright infringement, the company has special permission from the magazine to repost the article in its orgininal form.Canadiansteve (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The patents protecting this technology make the most claims out of any in the insitute they were made. (at the time, definately) Is that not notable?Canadiansteve (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a patent for using a laser pointer to entertain a cat. That doesn't make the cat or the laser pointer notable. Eeekster (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one claim. If that laser could make the cat write an essay, as well as entertain, it would be. To compare a technology that is being applied to create a entire factory that builds, assembles and stores in a truck for transport without human labour to feline entertainment is an insult. You can insult well, of that you are the champ, but can you engage in a debate with evidence?Canadiansteve (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is hosted on our website, it does not mean it was done by us, by the way.Canadiansteve (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these count as significant coverage in reliable sources? http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/media-center/inthepress/presshvac/ Dream Focus 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And thank you for actually taking the time to read, it is mighty refreshing. We also have a televion source when we were featured in what was known as the world's most important conference on robotics, but we no longer host the video, though I could have it sent privately. Canadiansteve (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH - it is unusual to see so much self publicity obscuring the lack of any significant independent reporting. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement, albeit a carefully crafted —conceiled perhaps?— one. It could perhaps be a different matter if (after almost 15 years now) this would produce something relevant, which it does not seem to do. (What made me come here) - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point... I could care less if Robotics Design is the "Canadian Microsoft". Canadiansteve could show me a link in which Stephen Harper makes a speech to Parliament praising the contributions of Robotics Design and I would still say delete. Canadiansteve's lack of civility, constant badgering of those in this discussion (as well as this one) and canvassing scream out major COI. Vive le Wikipedia libre. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 11:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is not the article now? Dont hate me, I tried to respond to questions, not badger, just I don't like hearing or saying the same thing twice.Canadiansteve (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is part of the problem. The other part of the equation is the author of the article who has a serious conflict of interest. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 18:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am your problem. That part I understand. What is the other part?Canadiansteve (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've voted delete in eleven other Afd's. How come you're the only one who's taken it personally? VictorianMutant^(Talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take you avoiding my questions as a sign of reluctant consent. You called this article a problem. Does it have a problem or it just very bad for you? Calling me a problem is saying you disapprove of my character, which is personal, and I'll take that as such. I forgive you, now would you please contribute by making constructive criticism, (point at details, don't make everyone guess how WP:'s apply) or do you have no understanding of this topic and/or is this issue is a personal matter to you? Canadiansteve (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sud Ouest is reliable source. Other major news outlets do reference them as such. [3] Not sure about the others, it hard to search for foriegn language sources, but they seem to be actual publications. Dream Focus 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, fyi, "sud ouest" simply means "south west," and the google search you link to above is a random grouping of all appearances of it, regardless of context. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Others link to the Sud Ouest article above, I not feeling the need to copy and paste it yet again. I was commenting on where someone said they weren't notable, I stating that they are a reliable source, and stating that some other news sources do comment on them. And my link shows this if you look at just those places it is capitalized, such as the New York Times talking about them [4]. Dream Focus 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be sufficient 3rd party sources within the References section to establish notability. (Maybe the company's internal News & Event and Product Spec pages could be moved to external links to allow the actual independent sources to be more visible?) AllyD (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Business makes robots that sweep industrial ducts, mostly. Despite their heroic efforts to publicize themselves, there's no showing that this particular business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture; and where the amply demonstrated possibility of conflict of interest exists, we should insist on long term significance before a business gets its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Robotics Design also makes giant snake arms that carry 1000kg, like the one they sold to Hydro-Quebec. These mobile robots can also be used for bomb disposal. Instead of long-term, how about major significance to the companies that use the products? Some of them have had the products for a while, and they have influenced the way the duct cleaning business works in Montreal. Instead of manual workers, there are robots with cameras, so the main problem that clients report in duct cleaning of not being able to ensure the entire job is done well is eliminated. Hydro Quebec also reduced the down-time of one of the most productive hydro-electric stations in the world, the Robert Bourassa Generating station, thanks to Robotics Design. Robotics Design has many patents, and has had a singificant effect on the world, though its hard to argue that it changed the history or culture of the world, it did have an effect on technology, because it invented technologies. Technology has been significant impacted by ANAT technology, whether or not it has been deployed in every culture in the world for all of history. History is obsured in the present, and only abjectly distinguishable from the future, anyways. It only pages that significanly changed history and culture by making everywhere the technology could be used use the technology, there would not be many articles on wikipedia. Your comment reads like a heroic excuse for your vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 03:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references. Biscuittin (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No there aren't, most google links to RD have nothing to do with this company.Greglocock (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions I have rarely seen a less productive attitude than the one shown by the article's owner. Despite that wiki is not a popularity contest and the existence of this article should not really be affected by his attitude. Firstly it needs a name change to Robotics Design Inc, as Robotics Design is a field of engineering, primarily. Secondly it needs a rewrite to remove all hints of the awesomeness of the products.Greglocock (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK I gave in and gave it a quick red pencilling. IF the company satisfies notability, not a subject i have an opinion on, then it doesn't look too bad really. I don't see a COI problem with the article, I see an attitude and ownership problem, which are not good deletion reasons. Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the red pencilling. I went to the section and linked it to other wikipedia pages to try to clarify things. Watch the video at roboticsdesign,ca's entry page in anything but IE and you'll "get" the technology, but it is very hard to explain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company and its products seem notable enough for an article, but I do think, as suggested above, that it needs moving to Robotic Designs Inc. Similarly, due to the CoI shown by Canadiansteve I believe he should be precluded from directly editing the article and should limit himself to necessary technical comments and suggestions on the article's talk page and allowing non-conflicted editors to supply the prose. I've also made a start de-stoatifying and copy-editing the existing text. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:Reliable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COI suggestion Both sides need to reread WP:COI, and experienced wiki editors in particular need to have a rethink about their negative attitude and stop bandying it about as if it is the be all and end all as regards policy for the existence of this article. There is NOTHING in WP:COI that says canadiansteve can't create and edit the article. It says (roughly) is he needs to be careful, and work with other editors. He appears to be working with me, at least.Greglocock (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please say what changes need to be made to the article to make it acceptable. Biscuittin (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this article for more than 7 days, and there do not seem to be any convincing arguments for deletion, so could we now make a decision to keep it? Biscuittin (talk) 14:41, 14 November 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.