Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of robotics

:{{la|Glossary of robotics}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Glossary of robotics}})

Woefully incomplete, link farm, no effort put into list. Deprodded with a tautological rationale. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Glossaries are accepted content - see WP:MOSGLOSS and numerous other glossaries. That this one is incomplete is not a reason to delete it. It is, instead, a reason to complete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Also a good reason to at least try when putting an article together. If you can't be arsed to put more than two words in a glossary, you probably should let someone else do it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

::* The author of this glossary also created Glossary of machine vision, which is more fleshed out. He started on this one and then just stopped. It's not clear why but that's still no reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

::*TenPoundHammer, There was enough content for the article before you tried to delete it. Far more than just two words. Dream Focus 05:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, it's expandable and clearly a valid topic. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Also, will the same nominator stop nominating so many things for deletion constantly. Don't most of the AFDs you start end in keep, if more than a few people are around to notice? Dream Focus 05:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

:*I don't think so; most of 10PH's AFDs result in deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{tl|rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 04:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete for now but no prejudice against re-creation when someone has enough time to add more to the article than alphabetic section headings and {{tl|Empty section}} templates. There are more entries in the external links section than there are in the article itself. SnottyWong ^chat 04:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

:* Editors cannot add entries to an article if it has been deleted. This proposition is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

::*It's not absurd. Editors can have the article restored or just start it from scratch. When this article was nominated, there was barely any content so it wouldn't have been much of a loss. The reason it is absurd to you is because you believe that an article with a notable subject and zero content is worth keeping, whereas I believe it is not. Anyway, the article has been expanded now, so I'll strike my vote and change to Keep. SnottyWong ^confabulate 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, otherwise we'll only have to come back and re-do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2011 (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.