Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nachi Robotic Systems Inc.


 * 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 WP:CORP explicitly calls for ''significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.'' The coverage provided in the links here are trivial/incidental at best. Saying a company is notable isn't enough, it needs to be demonstrated, and based upon what is here and in the article, that hasn't been established.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nachi Robotic Systems Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I cannot find anything to establish notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. noq (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see a few sources out there. Perhaps the most interesting is this one, which says "DaimlerChrysler plants are almost 100% populated with Nachi robots for spot welding and material handling applications". —  C M B J   03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a press release. Can you find any independent sources? noq (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The rear rails and ladders for the LH car are welded together as floors are shuttled in for join-up at DaimlerChrysler's Bramalea, Ont., facility. The automaker is using Nachi robots in a DCT Systems' integrated cell."
 * 
 * 
 * Plus Tata and Fiat PDF Fiat and others which have used them in the past...Chaosdruid (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as it appears that the company is notable enough if under publicised. It also looks as if the page was created under COI but with a little work can be made good :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (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.