Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Care-O-bot


 * 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, there is not a single reliable source in the article (direct links to the website and three derivatives of a press-release. No prejudice against recreation if independent reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Care-O-bot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Reads like an advertisement. All refs are own refs.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, but requires substantial rewrite to make it less like an ad. Notability is established by e.g. and .  TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  11:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsalvageable promo. I suggest using WP:TNT. The Banner talk 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stubify: Notable:, among many others, but the article is so promotional that it needs to be reduced to a stub and rewritten again. Esquivalience t 01:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only references are the subject's website and a press release. There is no  reliable source.--Rpclod (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Weak Keep (see update) I was originally thinking about a weak keep (with a lot of trimming and cleanup), but on top of all mentioned problems the article contains directly copy/pasted sections from the company's website (i.e. from here; and history of version I and II is also copy/pasted from sub-pages; and probably other sections as well). Considering all mentioned issues the article should be deleted. The overall notability isn't completely clear either: a lot of the mentioned reviews merely repeat the company's own product information with a bit of own commentary. The amount of independent reliable coverage is relatively small. GermanJoe (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: after some more trimming of promotional elements and of copy/pasted history info the article could be kept. It's still not great, but the topic itself appears to be notable within our guidelines and the remaining info is not overly promotional. The current robot version is also just released, so additional independent sources and information are likely to be available soon and could be added over time. GermanJoe (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article clearly meets WP:GNG; as multiple people above have pointed out, several independent, reliable sources have covered various versions of Care-O-bot, including multiple reliable sources already in the article ( and  and additional sources found by Esquivalience).  I re-wrote the paragraph that GermanJoe pointed out was copied from .  Much more work is needed, but I believe that this article can be salvaged. Shanata (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete All references in the article which I checked are self published. I checked some of the sources presented here in this discussion and find them also to be self published. Both of the sources which state that they are derived from press releases, which make them WP:SPS.  similarly provides a Gizmag review which is also a press release derivative. Medical technology is a gimmicky sector which does a lot of SEO strange publishing, including having sketchy writers parrot reviews and press releases. These are not WP:RS.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:42, 13 May 2015 (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.