Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANAT Technology


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ANAT Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Aritcle is just a thinly disguised advertisement and has a big COI problem. Eeekster (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not an advertisement. There are no products, just the technology, which has been presented in many conferences for advancing robotics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant COI and scant evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The technology is notable, and is taught to university students in Quebec. See the bottom as well for all the major conferences this technology has been presented in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a technology, this is not a product. This technology is known worldwide. This is not advertisement, this is a technology, and is here for informational purposes. This technology has generated products. They are all available at the page [Robotics Design]. This article does talk about products, though their existence is mentioned to show the use of the technology. Other parties, namely university students, have created products from ANAT technology, and existing ones provided inspiration for their creative endeavors.

You hypocritically claim (the both of you) that I have no right to place images here, because I [sic] "obviously" have no connection to them, and then propose the page for deletion, for a [sic] "serious COI".

Make up your mind, but as for FACT, this technology is EXTREMELY notable, and has been referenced in many magazines, which i do not places here other than one, for their mention of products. I wrote the page [Robotics Design] and ask you to please delete it for a COI if this page can be deleted under the same frivolous claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it is notable enough for an article to be created here, then it will eventually be created by someone who is less of an interested party than User:Canadiansteve... Victorian Mutant (Talk) 22:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Delete Robotics Design per Canadiansteve. Victorian Mutant (Talk) 22:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a separate discussion, to be found at Articles for deletion/Robotics Design. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, mutant, because unlike you, the university students that use it work. The governments it has been presented to will have no need for wikipedia. The last two commentators have no experience of any kind in robotics or anything related, and are unsuitable for determining its notability. The Article was placed here, after students asked us to last time, and now have begged, so we do again. I have no intention of calling one of them, and telling them to post what I write on this page. If you want to learn more about ANAT technology, attend some of the major events it is presented it, or visit the links on the page, then go to Robotics Design and visit the links on that page. I could care less if there was no wikipedia, but others like to use this page for informative purposes, and there is no one more qualified to speak about this than me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Steve... I do work. I am a middle manager for a large company which does have an article here on Wikipedia. I wouldn't even think of editing that page without full disclosure. Victorian Mutant (Talk) 22:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well mutant, I would expect the same from middle management. I have no idea what you mean by full disclosure in that context, however everything I write here is screened before writing it, so I assure you there is more than one hand in the pot when these posts are made, and there is most certainly more that one interested party to have this information here, mostly for quoting, when students use low bandwidth computers and need to obtain information quickly. When I make an edit, it assumes "full disclosure", and what I write is studied in universities. Only wikipedia has seemed to have problems with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This page has a neutral point of view. It is here to provide information to the public. Many students worked on this technology. It was a finalist in two categories in ADRIQ (http://www.adriq.com/Activit%C3%A9s/PrixINNOVATIONCrit%C3%A8resetformulaires.aspx) and manning innovation awards http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/media-center/news-and-events/ (visit this page, and you will find the certificate). You argument is that I deal with it. Show me where I was not being neutral and your argument holds water. Show me your examples of advertising, or the "barely concealed" cover to my alleged "advertising" and your argument holds water. If you have a problem with the page, I will change it. If you have a problem with me, I suppose I can't really argue that, other than that I am the most qualified person to speak on this subject. If the information was presented and it was wrong done by someone who knew nothing at all about the subject, and I corrected it would it be wrong and a "major COI"???

You have the ball gents, please tell me what you would like to see improved in this article and i will improve it. If you think this technology is not known, you are mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per RHaworth. Regardless of how well known it is, it's a blatantly huge COI. Needs knobbling.  BarkingFish  23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * knob·ble [nob-uhl] verb (used with object), -bled, -bling.

1.to knob (excess stone). 2. Metallurgy. to treat (semirefined puddled iron) on a hearth before shingling to produce wrought iron.
 * I have said I will "knobble" anything you please to be knobbled. There is no "un-neutral" point of view expressed as per me. If you disagree, before voting, find out why you are voting. If you do not know, do not accuse. If you see this elusive advertising, present it. Saying the whole page is an advertisement, however is blatantly false. It is a technology, and it is being presented. Because it is used in products, it shows how much more notable it is. It does not show an advertisment, and you are mistaken if you believe this to be so. Show me how it is an advertisement, and you have a point, vote and make accusations, and you have a biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, the onus is not on us to prove it's not worthy of an entry, that's down to you to prove that it is. And, fyi, knobble is also british slang meaning to damage, destroy, obliterate, remove, put out of action or otherwise excise in whatever manner you see fit - as in "Don't worry about your horse losing the race, I've knobbled the competition." BarkingFish  00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - promotional brochure. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that I’ve proven that many times; It is used in students getting their masters degrees or PHDs; It was mentioned in major international conferences; It has articles published about it; The things that it has generated have articles written about them; It was nominated for nation-wide prizes; the products it has generated have earn nation-wide prizes. I could go on all day, but that would be to your benefit. You switch topics most gracefully; since I disproved your COI is grounds for deletion, you revert to saying that it is not notable. Starting on my talk page, then to two other user's pages, then to the article discussion, then to here, every time I destroy all your unfounded accusations, you switch the page, make circle reasoning, or switch the topic. I do not know if you have ever participated in a debate in anything other than Wikipedia, but I assure you, don't ever try. You are not good enough.

That being said, the technology is notable, I have proved it, but that wasn't the question. THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU is what is wrong with the article specifically. If it presents information that is in magazines and used for education, it is not advertising. Your claims of a secret advertisement contained in the recesses of this article are absurd, and I ask you to prove your absurdities. As to orange mike, it has to be a brochure in order to be a promotional brochure. And it has to promote something. Such would imply that it is not being presented; it is being encouraged through a point of view which is not neutral. It is up to you to prove why that is so, because my only way to prove otherwise is saying no, it most certainly isn't but that is not proof, because your comment is simply an insult, not a accusation with any basis in reality. In order to have a basis in reality, you must say how it is so. If you or any of the others here can show that this is in fact an advertisement, then you are engaging in debate. You are running a Volksgerichtshof with judges that vote after. Make a point. Don't make a fuss.Canadiansteve (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete — CharlieEchoTango  — 02:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete — for above reasons stated -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 02:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "above reasons stated" are as follows: 1. a thinly disguised advertisement, 2. promotional brochure, 3. COI, 4. someone else would have done it, 5. scant evidence of notability.

1. What is digusing the imaginary advertisment? How is it an advertisment? This page simply seeks to present the technology, that is all. Should there be language that is not neutral, PLEASE remove it. I seek only fact, and puffery insinuates that the thing in question needs to be puffed to give it importance, which this article most certainly does not. 2. How is it promotional? And by brouchure, if you intend to say that it is meant to be distributed for the purpose of financial gain, you are deathly wrong.

pro·mo·tion·al/prəˈmōSHənl: Of or relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness.

This page is to invite creativity. Many students, who found robotics Design through the wikipedia page, have gone on to make their own inventions with ANAT technology, which improves humanity. It is for educational purposes only. We report 0 clients on google analytics who discovered our website, our technology, or its use through wikipedia. I defend this page for the same reason I defend humans: I want to help humanity.

3. I completely agree, I have a major COI with the topic. But so would the students who wrote about in in acheiving their degrees and so would other companies we've worked with. If someone who had heard of this topic once came here and made a erroneous page about it, and I corrected his mistakes, would that be a COI, too. It is better that someone who knows everything about the company, the technology, and its products make the page, and then people who only know a detail or two add them on their own.

COI is no reason for deletion. It is a reason for improvment, and deletion is not improvement. I have asked others to improve the page last time it was nominated for deletion, and they did very little. No one needs to improve the article when it is abject fact, and I most certainly do not present any information with the pretense of any bias. If you find the bias, please tell me, and I will be shocked, and change it. COI as reason for deletion is like saying that a page for a newly formed country on a new Isle is a COI because only people that live there write about it. While external people may write that it is there eventually, they will probably know very little, and encyclopedic is sacrificed for notable. I had a student offer to take everything I wrote, and paste it himself with his own experience with it too, which is not particularily notable. I said that is absurd, and beat out everyone who wanted this page gone for their own interests. If anything I have assured that this page stayed neutral, as those that have dealt with this technology are FAR more biased towards it then I, and I did not want this to become a fairy tale, only a scientific presentation on technology. My COI is a COI, but of the greatest breed, I am dedicated to this technology unbiased presentation for the use it can have for humanity. I make no money from anything that has to do with this technology, I am a student who prefers to improve the community rather than play videos and watch games.

4. I've responded to this in the above answers. There have been others since who asked me if this technology is on wikipedia, because they were interested in putting it there to show family elsewhre studying in a related topic. I said yes. They did not do it. If you delete the article, yes, they will put it back. You will have all accomplished nothing. My name will not be there, and if this truly matters to your beaurocracy, then I will delete the page myself tommorow, and have a student put it back up in a second. I am however, the foremost authority to speak on the topic, so what would be the reasoning in having someone less familiar with it present it? Would you prefer Sociology be presented to you by Sigmond Freud, or by a gangster rapper? Yes, in many articles it is best to get "all the sides of the story". A technology with patents and products and major confrences and media mentions only has one side to fact. If i made assertions about the technology, those could be refuted. I only presented the technology as it is, however, which I assume is why the only accusation I see is that the whole page is an advertisment, insetad of a detail. Perhaps the inventor would be more credible than me. Perhaps those who use the technology would be less interested in the company than me. Perhaps everyone who has heard about this technology could add the details I have, piece by piece. But perhaps it is better that I do everything, and save everyone the time they would have spent reading the page. Either way, there is no reason for deletion more childish than saying "lets delete it and see if it comes back".

5. Your reason reads like an insult to all my sources. Did you find the manning innovation awards not notable? How about the Chambre de Commerce de Montreal, which hosts it in the Palais Des Congres, with events attends by world political leaders? The international Hannover fair, which many magazines and newpapers wrote about in german (and included many monetions of Robotics Design, and its technology and the products it is used in), Montreal F1rst, Connexcite, these things are not notable. If they are notable, then presenting ANAT technology in them makes it notable. Canadian magazines that talk about this technology, are they not notable? You can insult Canada and the things in it until you are blue in the face, but they are notable to us, as is the ANAT technology to Canada, so it doesn't make you anything other then a biased person. The technology is notable, and now that it has its own page, I can expand it to show all the diffrent creations. My images of the initial module, and three graphical pictures by the company were all deleted because it was claimed that I had no relation to the comapny by one person voting an end to this page for my COI. This was to soon expand to include many more creations which would incite the creativity of others. I showed no products, only basic functionalities of robots that can be accomplished with this technology. If nothing else, of which there is much, this technology is notable in iself, as any robot can be formed from it to do anything a robot can currently do and do things no other robot can do. You show scant evidence of being capable to determine notability in robotics, technology in general, innovation, idustry, or any of the types of products it has generated that will not get a desrption here, such as bomb disposal robots that carry twice what 2m tall robots carry that can drive under cars, or airplane seats. The scant evidence of notability is interantional acclaim, and although our mars-walker robot is currenly waiting for additional funding (though it is ready), you will have to do with people European and North American and Far Eastern mentions about it.

Please save this page for education.Canadiansteve (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - for all the above reasons and probably more. Not notable . no notable references etc. etc.  Velella  Velella Talk  12:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - blatant COI, and simply can't stand SPAs who refuse to recognize their precious gem is going to get flushed down the drain.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you try to take an episode of south park or the page for dictatorship off wikipedia, I will fight you there too just as hard.Canadiansteve (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The stylistic problem starts right off the bat; this bit of tech is described as an innovation.  Advertising for a tech product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Innovation: 2.A new method, idea, product, etc: "technological innovations". I suppose the definition of new was a little more obsure than I realized, and therefore this word should not at all be used, a very astute observation, thank you. However, a technology is not a product.Canadiansteve (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of references. Biscuittin (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete Weak Keep should at most be a para in the parent article. Greglocock (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This technology has noting to to with a product or company, other then it has generated some and was invented by a person who owns a company. It is an architectural concept. A page for the concept of using H in structures, like the Roman aqueducts should exist, because they share "H"s share payloads evely between all attached ones and hold the structre stronger. Thats why the aquducts are still there. This is like that, but when you use it in a robot, its called an ANAT module, and instead of just sitting there, it can make robots with these "H"s like cells of the body that can allow it to do anything a human can physically, and also lets you design robots that instead of 8 DOF all the time have N; each module is a DOF (degree of freedom). Also two robots made of a bunch of anat cells can come together and make a diffrent one, like the cells of a bomb disposal robot and snake-arm shape-shifting mechanically and forming a diffrent robot, like a car-boat-plane. This is a concept. Only the company can make actual robots out of it, but im pretty sure if you made robots in a videogame out of the same modules, the patent doesn't go near there, so its still a concept for everybody, and its notable, because its been in magazines and got awards and stuff.Canadiansteve (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There is some evidence of notability. However, the article is in serious need of improvement because it reads like an advertisement. DinosaurDan (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please give examples of "advertising" so that I can remove them. Biscuittin (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not see how the present version is promotional; I'm pretty insistent on deleting articles that are, and have been deleting them at a rapid rate at Speedy, but this sounds like a neutral description, not an advertisement. COI is not reason for deletion, if the final product is satisfactory. I consider the referencing barely sufficient, but still sufficient.   DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as having insufficient independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Self-reconfiguring modular robot - Not notable enough for it's own article. --Kvng (talk) 16:59, 14 November 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.