Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-notable EPFL robots


 * 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; Scientizzle 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable EPFL robots
AfDs for this article: 


 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Keep. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (reasons below) nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The cover page of Nature makes it notable enough to me. Engelec (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (reasons below) nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn for this article; see below. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn for this article; see below. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (reasons below) nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn for this article; see below. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn for this article; see below. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a deletion nomination of three articles about robotics projects. They are part of a walled garden of related articles by, who appears to be involved with these projects. None of these robots appears to have substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, failing our notability guideline. I will also be nominating the articles about the scientists involved in these projects for deletion for the same reason. Sandstein (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These robots are notable robots which are used in a number of laboratories which were not involved in their conception (while mobile robotics is a highly competitive field). I am sorry to say that I cannot imagine any excuse "None of these robots appears to have substantial coverage by reliable independent sources". Sandstein, you should read the sources provided in the articles before making such statements. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am from the EPFL indeed, yet I have not been involved in the Khepera at all, and not really in the e-puck (I only fixed a bug). I have moderately been involved in the development of the s-bot (I wrote its API). I think those robots have their place in Wikipedia, because they all were used by several different laboratories and produced dozen scientific publications. The Khepera, beside its Nature cover, returns 2220 hits when searched on google scholar (khepera mobile robot). The S-bot returns 107 hits on google scholar (s-bot mobile robot), was featured on Wired and Slashdot . A list of S-bot related coverage is available here . Finally, the e-puck is newer, but already lead to several publications (22 hits on google scholar with e-puck mobile robot), including a SIGGRAPH one . The two producers and several sellers is also uncommonly large for a research robot. --nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Khepera and S-bot, per the multiple laboratory usage and press mentioned by nct. Weak keep e-puck for the same reasons; I note that, beyond EPFL, the Future Applications Lab in Göteborg appears to be using it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I withdraw the nomination for the first two robots, as sources indicating their notability are now accessible. I remain unconvinced about the E-Puck. The coverage in the SIGGRAPH article is not substantial, and just being used in laboratories does not confer notability under WP:N. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the e-puck is notable because it is an educational robot, used in courses in several universities (google search (not scholar)), both a the level of undergraduate courses and during summer schools . It is implemented in three simulators  . Nevertheless, even being an education robot, it has been used in research. Finally, there is several sellers worldwide. I agree that the article should be improved, but there is enough links on google for people to improve the article and not just throw it away. --nct (talk) 07:59, 29 November 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.