Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial robot organism

: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 at G12. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

===Artificial robot organism===

:{{la|Artificial robot organism}} ([{{fullurl:Artificial robot organism|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial robot organism}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Even though this article has photographs and seems really cool, it is unfortunately original research published on Wikipedia. The sources used support my claim that this is original research, since they are spun together to build a case for artificial robot organisms without actually using the name or the particulars of the entities pictured. The main article for this seems to be Swarm robotics. Abductive (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Very cool, but not notable; no sources given to demonstrate notability --Cybercobra (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The lack of sources is true in general; {{findsources|Artificial robot organism}}. Abductive (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Poorly titled. Article views possible developements in robotics. Robot in a robot swarm with artificial intelligence is a robot, new or old generation. Additionally there is a ton of conjecture and crystal-ball-peeking (say in regard to evolutionary behavioural aspects). "May be possible" is not encyclopedia-worthy. Casimirpo (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial robot organism||}}

  • Such a cool article, I hate to delete. I think Merge may be the best option here, or at least for the images. Use the sources to expand the other article (Swarm Robotics). Gosox5555 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: G12, WP:COPYVIO. See [http://www.symbrion.eu/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=231 Symbiotic Robot Organisms: REPLICATOR and SYMBRION Projects]. — Rankiri (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, shame, obvious time and effort there, but lack of sources and possible original research does it for me. Hope to keep the images though! They are very good. Andy (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the licensing of at least [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RechargingSwarm.jpg one of the images] used in this article, the article's creator claims to be one of the lead authors of the [http://www.symbrion.eu/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=231 paper cited by Rankiri above]. However, the permission notice on the first page of that paper is incompatible with WP's GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing, so in the absence of an OTRS ticket releasing it under a compatible license, in the name of whoever actually controls the paper's copyright, most of the article's text cannot be used here. Unless this copyright matter is cleared up, the article will have to be deleted (or radically stubbified), I think. Deor (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has now been tagged with copyvio in accordance with policy. G12 could very well be applied in this case, but as there are major concerns about the rest of the contents, letting the AfD run its course may be the best, if only to provide the authors with pointers to recreate an article which passes our inclusion criteriae. Neutral on deletion vote, haven't formed an opinion on the matter. MLauba (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.