Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blobotics


 * 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 Keep &mdash; Caknuck 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blobotics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Jelly robots? Appeared in one publication of new Scientist? By a scientist who's not even famous enough for Wikipeda? Moglex 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a speculative concept but it's based on real science. ABC Radio in Australia covered this term  as did New Scientist .  You did research this before nominating it, didn't you?  Nick mallory 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick mallory. Hut 8.5 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick mallory. Not too many google hits but then again g-hits don't necessarily mean notability. Research seems sound, thus keep. -WarthogDemon 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Real published research in an interesting field, and the name has caught on per coverage of New Scientist, ABC Radio, Chemistry Daily & several blogs etc. As for 'By a scientist who's not even famous enough for Wikipeda', it's not my area, but the papers/books listed on his publications list (linked from ) look to support notability, so perhaps he should have a bio article? Espresso Addict 09:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Real area of research. Tim Vickers 17:04, 1 August 2007 (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.