User talk:Chaosdruid/European Robotics Research Network

Deletions discussion

European Robotics Research Network

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

Keep As stated on the talk page, a quick Google book search produced these: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. From a Google news search: The Times, Fox News, The BBC and The Telegraph It shows at least four independent international news sources: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability". As for the matter of "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability" I cannot agree that these sources are trivial. Some could be considered incidental, but

WP:ORG

states:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

I would say that those have been met, though I would have to do more than the five minute searches I did already to provide more info. I am in the middle of a large copy-edit so will get around to doing that, if it proves necessary, in the next 24 hours.

I notice that you have not informed the Robotics project, I will do that for you. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

below retained for info only

Those are certainly respected sources, however, as I said on the article talk page and in the nom, all of them are about other subjects/people and just mention this network in-passing. As for the Robotics project, I thought that all projects (and certainly one on this subject) were using Article Alertbot and got notified automatically about AfDs, PRODs, etc concerning them. --Crusio (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

above retained for info only

Looks like it is finally working properly again, using talk page tags so that we get informed. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you are going to ignore "Organizations are usually notable" and claim that the organisation does not meet the two criteria? (which I have posted above): Scope is national or international; and "Infomation ... can be verified by multiple ... sources" - as shown above, The Times, The BBC, Fox News and The Telegraph? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous comment, did you look at The Times, BBC, Fox News or The Telegraph links? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, as per the user above you, how do you see that as not fitting into parameter 2 of the notability I have quoted above? "2 Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.". I am a little confused as how people are not understanding that both those parameters are fulfilled, yet they are still saying delete. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't read them then: Ref 1 - "The analysis culminated at a meeting recently held in Genoa by the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) that examined the problems likely to arise as robots become smarter, faster, stronger and ubiquitous." and Ref 3 "The European Robotics Research Network is also drawing up a set of guidelines on the use of robots. This ethical roadmap has been assembled by researchers who believe that robotics will soon come under the same scrutiny as disciplines such as nuclear physics and Bioengineering." and Ref 4 - "The initial findings of one such group, the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) were unveiled last summer, and went as far as raising the question of the ethics of robot sexuality, and whether sex-toy robots should be developed." Chaosdruid (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]