Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotshop

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 to delete. All the single purpose accounts canvassed to keep the article haven't done much good, but the cleaning up, and further referencing has. Unforunately nobody so far has yet commented on the reliability and the extent of coverage of the French sources. Still a fair number of people believe that the sources that are currently here show enough notability to keep the article. There is no clear consensus to keep, but nor is there to delete the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robotshop

Robotshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

No evidence of

• Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this company has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. The only new hit I could find that seemed to apply was a press release, which are always suspect anyway since they come from the subject. (Note: COI and SPA are not automatic reasons for deleting an article.)  Frank  |  talk  16:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, reads like an advertisement. -- Elassint ^{Hi! ^_^} 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete: RobotShop is Highly Notable. Perhaps the page can be modified to look less like an advertisement.
  

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

· RobotShop Distribution inc. is registered since 2003 under the Canada Business Federation Act : Corporation #6142567 BN #875730509RC0001
· RobotShop has between 10-100 employees.
· RobotShop is a partner of iRobot for distributing the Roomba in Canada since 2003 and is a leader in the industry. See the link on the Official iRobot Web Site to RobotShop under Americas, Canada. RobotShop is also the first company worldwide to repair the popular Roomba from iRobot.
· RobotShop also partners with more than 150 manufacturers (all major leaders in the robotics industry, some of which have a page on WikiPedia).
· RobotShop is member of the Better Business Bureau
· RobotShop has appeared multiple times on TV, in magazines, newspapers, blogs and forums. Here some examples:
- Banc d'essai du Peuple (French interview about the Lawnbott Robot Mower)
- Servo Magazine (RobotShop advertises in Servo Magazine since many years and are often reffered to because of their notable products)
- Toronto Star Article.
- Interview with the president on the blog of Abry.biz
· Google Notoriety:
- 18700 indexed pages, page rank of 5
- More than 60 000 results for the term "RobotShop" and the first spot is for RobotShop Web site.
- More than 492 000 results for the term "Robot Shop" and the first spot is for RobotShop Web Site.
· Recent Press Releases:
- RobotShop is Upgrading (from RobotShop)
- RobotShop is Duplicating (from RobotShop)
- CoroWare Announces Distributorship Agreement with RobotShop (from Coroware on the Robotic Trends Web site) --

Comment You haven't really addressed any of the notability criteria in

WP:CORP. Press releases, advertising, etc. do not cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment What about the examples provided such as the Television coverage and the Newspaper Article which seem to be part of "Primary Criterion"? This with a quick search about RobotShop. I am quite certain that many more sources can be found. What about the collective robotics community that gravitates around RobotShop? I do however agree that the press releases and advertising are not addressable as notariety criteria. --Jbrunet (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Blogs are rarely considered to be a reliable source (unless written by a notable pundit, etc.) The Toronto Star source contains only a trivial mention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Comment I am new to Wikipedia and am very interested in the WikiProject: Robotics. I am also thankful that there are volunteers who check articles and verify information. Having read through the section “Adding information to WikiProject_Robotics”, I decided to add the article “RobotShop” with the objective “To improve Wikipedia articles related to robotics development, technology, research, and other related areas” which “covers […] robots used by consumers, industries and governments”.

The RobotShop page was created following the Wikiproject Robotics Article Guidelines as a company providing both robotic parts and services (domestic robotic repair, troubleshooting and general robotics education). However, I noted that “If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

Perhaps instead of deleting the page, allow others to add notability and add the heading below. It is far easier to encourage users to add content to a page rather than create a new page entirely.

Cbenson1 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Are you (and JBrunet, the other

single purpose account) affiliated with the company in question? Honesty is the best policy here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single purpose account: Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time.

• KEEP IT - I have been encouraged by the RobotShop community to come here and share my thought about RobotShop notability. What I can say, I own the popular Roomba from iRobot since the beginning. When I got problems with my robot after only one year and a half, iRobot told me to buy a new one! Warranty was over and iRobot does not offer any repair services. I found RobotShop over the Web, it was the only place to repair the Roomba. My robot has been fixed very fast and it is still working today. What is a "notable" company? Is it those big companies quoted everywhere that take your money and offer bad services? Or is it this company who offer real services to people, in a new emerging market, where even the manufacturers let you alone with your problems?

• I say keep it. I love RobotShop and this is a true pioneer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameleon123 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Cameleon123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep It RobotShop is a great company. Their website is easy to navigate and when i order things from them they are always timely with the delivery. You should allow them to keep their wiki page because people interested in buying or building robots might wiki first. Then they can find RobotShop's site that way, and I believe RobotShop would be of use to them because they have robot kits for all levels of builders.--129.174.88.5 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Ross Varndell[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Press releases and blogs are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm satisfied that there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Not a lot but sufficient to clear the notability bar. Other issues are for editting and don't factor into the deletion decision. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps
  WP:COM? As per Satori Son's suggestion, references outside of RobotShop added. --Cbenson1 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
  • Comment: I still don't see any
    third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And if you know who is emailing RobotShop customers and telling them to comment here, please ask them to stop. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. — Satori Son 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Thank you for the comment Satori Son, but I am not sure exactly what you are referring to? The "reliable sources" listed for notability includes major newspapers, magazines and television as examples. In this case all three were found very easily and are certainly reliable. As I have not received any mailing myself, I cannot make any comments on your second point. It is very easy to delete an article and significantly harder to contribute to it; this is one of the main reasons why the Wikipedia Article Rescue Squadron was formed. :::--Cbenson1 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Most of the "sources" are either standard government forms, press releases, or blogs. In the two newspaper articles, RobotShop receives a very trivial mention somewhere in the story. I cannot verify the reliability of the producer of the YouTube video, but it looks like an infomercial. Sorry, but not enough to establish sufficient notability. Regarding the canvassing, I assumed that since you and Jbrunet “are affiliated with” RobotShop, you might know who was soliciting RobotShop customers asking them to comment here. Since you don’t know, maybe the person who is doing so will read this.— Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that you do not understand French does not affect the fact that the video on Youtube is reliable. This is not an infomercial, this is a complete reportage about RobottShop. [1]. Here the official source and very easy to find on Google. The references in the newsletters are more than trivial, they talk about RobotShop, their products and they contain quotes from the founders. Your comments are not objectives. I am sorry.--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Satori Son, the refferences provided for the History are Federal and Provincial government sources and recognized institutions that are quite reputable and accurate sources of information.Jbrunet (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - They are also primary sources. They prove the organization (and millions of others) exist, but do not demonstrate that it is notable. -
  talk) 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Exactly. There is no one who thinks that RobotShop does not exist. Do you honestly think this link shows the company is notable? Or this one? — Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. ---- What about references 2, 14 and 15, who are reliable newspaper articles and TV show? You seem to only look at what is negative and avoid what is positive. Why you avoid talking about these references that show that RobotShop is Notable? Please answer, I would like you to evaluate these references and see you say that this is not good references? The fact that the article has some references proving that RobotShop is incorporated is not a bad thing--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with the text in the discussion section. It seems to me there is a bit of American bias going on here. Things American appear to be automatically 'notable'. To me RobotShop is much more notable than lets say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Drug; however that page doesn't seem to be tagged for deletion. To me RobotShop provides a service and information I can't find anywhere else. --Cameleon123 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Cameleon123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• See
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist..." — Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• See
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this...."--Cameleon123 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep it!! I had searched for some applicable products (miniature actuators with control interface) for my latest projects for several weeks before I stumbled upon RobotShop. They seemed to have exactely the products I was looking for, so I sent them an e-mail. A few hours later I received a very helpful answer where they suggested some products I could use. Products that would later prove to be the solution to my little dilemma. Up to this date I have not found any other webshops that offer these products. The "next best" option were products from a somewhat similar company, only these parts cost 3 or 4 times as much as the ones RobotShop offer. I live in Norway, and I have now ordered products for several hundreds of USD from RobotShop (which is located in Canada). It goes without saying that this is a very special company with very special products. If not, I would have bought the products from a local dealer. I honestly think they deserve their own Wiki page. -Johannes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.95.64 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — 84.48.95.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment The entire History was redone to be more encyclopedic. Refferences were also added.Jbrunet (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - Not notable. (And the blind "keeps" from the canvased
  talk) 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I'm on the fence only as I haven't myself researched this ... for those working to improve the article you need to find articles about the company, services, impact etc. in local and business-related media, newspapers and magazines work well, online blogs less so (and PRWEB is not helpful). Also the tone needs work as it sounds promotionalish, see
  Banjeboi 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree the text in the products and services section needs work. However, In the references, I can see 2 newsletter articles and one TV show talking about RobotShop and their innovative products. The TV show talks about the company, their products and services and also the vision of the founders. RobotShop make clear impact on the society sponsoring robotic competitions and school projects. Furthermore, some researches on Google demonstrate that the domain name www.robotshop.ca is very well indexed and receive decent traffic. The searches for the term ROBOTSHOP and ROBOT SHOP get additional Sitelinks, and Google give these additional links only to domain name having authority and credibility for the specific keywords. I think the Wikipedians who wants to delete this article should evaluate seriously the possibility that RobotShop is notable. I know that blog is not really useful to prove notability, but I found this one interesting: Roslyn Robot’s Blog. They talk about David Levy, an expert in artificial intelligence who has released a new book. What is interesting is the reference to the text on the robotshop repair service page that talks about the evolution of human-robot relationship. It seems that RobotShop has something special. Something notable that maybe is not yet covered by the Medias. I encourage the Wikipedia community to evaluate all aspects of notability.--24.37.209.6 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)— 24.37.209.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - If it is not yet covered by the media, it is not yet notable. -
    talk) 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - That is, notable by wikipedia standards to justify having an article. If there are numerous media mentions and at least a few are more in depth it helps the other editors here accept that Robotshop is notable by the same standard that other articles have to meet.
    Banjeboi 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment {{WikiProject Robotics}} Added to discussion page.--Cbenson1 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. AfD listed at

• Hold your horses As a regular editor of
  WikiProject Robotics, please let me just remove the spam-like material and have everyone who has voted to revote as per the revised edition. If I could have people do that, that'll be great. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strongly Keep IT - II believe the revision is adequate and show some reliable sources proving that RobotShop is notable.--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per editor please. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I fixed the formatting of the newspaper references, and I think that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources demonstrate non-trivial coverage. The Toronto Star article is the closest, but that article is primarily about robotic appliances; it only mentions Robotshop in passing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the individual who started the article, I am unsure if I am in a position to cast a vote. My intention was to create a seed and have others add to it (something which takes time of course). Jameson L.Tai seems to have an unbiased approach which would necessitate additional time. Secondly, I agree that any content that appears to be an advertisement or spam should be reworked or removed. I agree with Whpq that it is best to omit premature "keep" or "delete" votes until the article has been reworked. Although I do not have a horse, I will grab the nearest four legged creature I can catch. --Cbenson1 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added 3 magazine and news article scans, taken from the archives. These should establish notability (Note: these articles are in French so hopefully this will not be used against them): Magazine Le Village, Isabelle Lapierre - Quebec Micro, April 2007 - Metro Montreal, September 22nd 2004 Jbrunet (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analysis of each of the items shown as references.

1. ^ Industry Canada - Corporation

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

2. ^ "Robotshop: La robotique à votre portée" (in French), Québec Micro (April 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, Québec Micro magazine. Not an ad. Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the magazine, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

3. ^ Lapierre, Isabelle. "L'aide du futur" (in French), Magazine Le Village. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, Magazine Le Village. Not an ad. Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the magazine, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

4. ^ Massicotte, Jean-Sébastien (June 18, 2005). "Tondeuses-robots. Des appareils sans fil... et sans pilote ! Newspaper article about RobotShop and its products" (in French), Le Soleil. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

More about robotic lawnmowers distributed by the company rather than the company itself. Secondary coverage in reliable source, a daily newspaper. Not an ad. Printout of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

5. ^ Quebec Government Company Registry

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

6. ETS Centech: September 2002 Bulletin

Primary source which confirms that RoboShop was active as a partnership in 2002.

7. ^ ETS Robotics Engineering Program

University web page. Not a claim to notability.

8. ^ Quebec Government Company Registry

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

9. ^ Synnett, Cindy (September 22, 2004). "Robotshop" (in French), Metro Montreal. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, a daily newspaper. Not an ad. Printout of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

10. ^ 2005 SAJE/CLD 2005 Annual Report

Primary source.

11. ^ RobotShop is Upgrading - Press Release

Press release – not a claim to notability.

12. ^ RobotShop is Duplicating - Press Release

Press release – not a claim to notability.

13. ^ Abry.biz by Vincent Abry Interview with RobotShop's Mario Tremblay

Better-than-average blog, but probably not a reliable source by Wikipedia standrds.

14. ^ CRC Robotics Competition Sponsored by RobotShop

Primary source. Not a claim to notability.

15. ^ Google Scholar: RobotShopRoboGames Sponsorship

Google search.

16. ^ Turrentine, Jeff (May 5, 2005). "Relax, grass-cutting gizmo at work", Toronto Star. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Part of text of article. Main topic is the mower rather than RoboShop as a dealer.

17. ^ Turrentine, Jeff (May 5, 2005). "Relax, grass-cutting gizmo at work" (pdf), Toronto Star. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy. Main topic is the mower rather than RoboShop as a dealer.

18. ^ "Robotshop: La robotique à votre portée." (in French), Québec Micro (April 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Same as #2

19. ^ Television report on RobotShop Distribution Inc., NerdZ TV show, Thursday, November 30, 2006, by Jean Fournier

Not broadcast television, but a licensed specialty channel in Canada. The program is listed in a press release from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters "CAB Announces Finalists for 2006 Gold Ribbon Awards". See the listing for the show at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456243/ Hosted at YouTube rather than on the channel's website, so possible copyright concerns – but still a reliable source.

20. ^ Crowley, Dan (2005). The 505 Weirdest Online Stores: 505 Things You Never Thought You Could Buy .... Sourcebooks, Inc., 64.

ISBN 1402203772

.

Primary source, from the company's web site. ---Eastmain (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that membership in a Better Business Bureau does not confer notability. Similarly, advertisements do not confer notability by themselves. --Eastmain (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've removed several POV statements from the article and fixed the small awkward one-sentence paragraphs/subsections. Although it does not improve notability, it does make it sound less and less of an ad. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. AfD listed at WikiProject Canada / Quebec and WikiProject Companies.

• Keep. With the clean-up and additional references I've seen nothing to suggest that this company is anything other than what the article claims and sourcing seems to support notability. I have little doubt that there are more sources available in French as that seems to be the originating language and the subject matter is interesting so I have little doubt that the company will be getting even more attention. That they specialize in their field rather than excelling in self-promotion should not be held against them.
  Banjeboi 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep With the noted changes made within the past 24 hours I believe this article has been fixed according to standards. Since most articles pertaining to this company is in French, it is difficult for editors (including myself) who do not understand French to provide sources that may be improperly citing the article incorrectly. I believe at the moment this article is in par with most business stubs on Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually from what I've seen it's a bit better than most.
    Banjeboi 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Though the article has been cleaned up nicely, I still have yet to see any convincing evidence that the company meets our notability standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the article currently stands, the reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article rescue squad has done a good job. The article deserved deletion when nominated (CSD#A7 does not assert notability.) Now it has coverage in 2 local newspapers and the Toronto Star: the rare example of the tiny company that is notable. I get the impression from the discussion that more coverage can be found: if so it should be added. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All articles require time to grow when first created. Thanks to all who have modified, edited and improved the content. The article merits being kept in its current form and keeping it means the content can only be improved.--Cbenson1 (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability staisfied with the recent article upgrades, per multiple comments above. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you've read the version of this article when the article was nominated compared to its current revised, de-spammed version with several additional references. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note that (1) quite a few of the keep votes are SPA accounts (2) the Toronto Star reference is trivial; the only non-trivial references are in French; I don't speak French, so I don't know if the references are non-trivial, or if they are notable and/or WP:Reliable sources and (3) we're talking about a retailer/distributor that sells and repairs robots made by other companies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to be rude...but shouldn't we be asking someone who actually understands French to verify these references instead of second-guessing and possibly casting doubt on possible good references? I mean I don't understand French either, so I wouldn't know. I've given an honest effort trying to get references for this article, but they're mostly in French. Perhaps a relist with a notice in the translation team? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And regarding the SPA accounts, I believe there are almost equal amounts of SPAs as real editors with established edit histories. I think the previous discussions and votes should be noted, but not counted, as votes towards the old version do not necessarily reflect the article in its current condition. Also, this will prevent certain SPAs from proper vote counting. Same can be said about the delete votes. A simple delete vote above without much explanation hardly gives meaningful points for further discussion. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• as votes towards the old version do not necessarily reflect the article in its current condition So does that mean that if I didn't reiterate my original !vote, that it would be discounted? No. If an interested party wants to change their !vote, they have that option. It's not assumed null unless re-validated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article itself has changed significantly since it was originally written. Many of the original users who wrote "delete" and "keep" have not made any comments regarding its current state. Note that the most corporate websites have only a small fraction of the notability listed here. Next, please note the yellow "up for deletion" argument was changed to "delete" within 7 MINUTES after having slightly modified the article. According to Wikipedia, it's not the number of votes that bears the most weight, but rather the merit of the arguments. An increasing number of users have since returned to change their votes from "delete" to "keep" and their comments are appreciated - it would seem most users add their vote and never return, and most users (completely unaffiliated with the company) put in so much effort to keep the page active. I also hope everyone notes that if a concensus is not reached, the default is to "keep" the article. For those who do not understand French, one option is to use an online translator program, or eat a lot of poutine. --Cbenson1 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone does not retract or change their opinion, that opinion stands. Just for the record, my opinion to "delete as insufficiently notable" has not changed. — Satori Son 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please tell me why Jameson L. Tai is asking for someone who actually understands French to verify these references??? Hey, take the time to read the full story up here. I mean, Eastmain took his precious time to do exactly what you ask for! Your comments are not really useful at this time of the discussion. You are not useful because you do not understand French so you cannot be a good judge. Give your place or give credit to Eastmain, who is fully bilingual and a regular editor of WikiProject Robotics.--Cameleon123 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your comments are verging on a personal attack. Please be aware of our
    policy on that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Comment Personal attack? I am sorry, I just asked a question! I honestly think that calling for a French reader after all the work done by Eastmain is not really appropriate and does not respect the work done by other wikipedians. Also, You seem to have a big bias about distributor/retailer, if I refer to your comment (3) up here. I know that we have to assume good faith, but this is difficult to believe in your objectivity after this. Finally according to your policy, "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack" -Cameleon123 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping things civil is the first thing editors need to learn and practice, especially on topics such as AfD discussions. I have made significant changes to the article and I believe I voted to keep the article, but yes, I do agree there is still no clear assertion of notability based on English sources. Making a simple request to having someone who understand French review and comment on the references is a by-the-book and necessary call in order to verify and clear the references. This is a open-collaboration encyclopedia, which will entail much work, time, and effort from contributors from all around the world. I'm not discounting Eastmain's contributions nor intentions, but please do not try to personally attack my comment, considering comparing Eastmain's work under WikiProject Robotics with my organization of the WikiProject itself. It is best that if you are seriously letting this discussion cloud your fair judgement in forming civil and constructive comments, to take a break and take a step back. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not know who you are and I really don't care. I base my comments on what I read here. I do not agree with you: your request to having someone who understands French review and comment on the references was NOT a necessary call at this point because this is already done by Eastmain. So saying this again in your last comment, you just continue to ignore the work of other Wikipedians and this in my opinion is not a constructive and civil comment. Tell us why you are not satisfied with what Eastmain did as study?--Cameleon123 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have said before, and I'll say it again, Wikipedia is a large collaboration from many contributors. While I have not discounted or discredited Eastmain's work, your continued aggressive attitude towards this discussion is not constructive. Asking for other people to cross-check each other's work is commonplace and is vital on Wikis, and it has dawned on me that you're taking this article too seriously to form a productive outcome. I suggest you take a chillpill. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I expressed a Delete opinion (way up top) and I have reviewed again, and come to the same conclusion. There are references, but they don't establish notability. Having a corporate record with Canada or Quebec does not make a company notable; it merely makes it a legal entity. The company's annual report is self-published, and therefore not independent. This company is a distributor - that doesn't make them notable. Sponsorship of "robotgames" is advertising. A Youtube video is not generally considered a reliable source. The Abry.biz reference is essentially a blog; any entry that has to claim in its intro that it is not sponsored is suspect, in my opinion. (If you have to put a disclaimer up front, it's probably because you have a conflict of interest or otherwise appear to be biased.) I don't read French, so I have no opinion as to the validity of those sources, but it seems to me that if the only way to establish notability is in a foreign language, it probably belongs in that language's version of Wikipedia, not English. All of these things added up, plus a lack of ability to find reliable sources in English, lead me to conclude (still) that this article does not establish notability of its subject. (Note: COI does not strike me as a reason to delete an article; if it's notable, that can be cleaned up; this article's subject just doesn't appear notable to me.)  Frank  |  talk  13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I have made several attempts to rescue this article to be as non-"spammy" as possible, there are not enough references to justify the notability of this company. Conversation with User:Cameleon123 aside, this article does not fulfill current Wikipedia standards on notability of a corporation. (Previous vote has been struck out) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 :KEEP IT Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, like you would expect from people who are trying to build a house. Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't look right," the inspector says, pulling out a tape measure, "and by these measurements, they are not wide enough." The builder replies, "They aren't finished yet." The inspector moves on. "This wall isn't supported enough," the inspector says nonchalantly. "Of course not," the builder replies, "We haven't finished it yet."

"And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on." "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!" The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

• How was that even relevant to this discussion? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You are one of the inspectors who want to demolish the house (this article) while it's still being built ---24.37.209.6 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2008 (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.