Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotic police officer


 * 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. Arguments about hypothetical future notability were not substantiated and WP:CRYSTAL arguments are rejected by a mountain of AFD precedent. causa sui (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Robotic police officer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure speculation about a subject that only exists in movies; sourced to a single speculative article.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: If someone can find a lot of information through magazines, newspapers and other sources about robotic police officers in fiction, maybe this could be less about speculation and more about the robotic police officers in the movies. GVnayR (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Speculation can be accurate sometimes, if enough research is done. I have also added a reference from a book. -- Σ  talk contribs   06:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete sourced to a single speculative article, if more more quality sources were to be forthcoming then would consider changing. Mt  king  (edits)  06:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't a book count? -- Σ  talk contribs   06:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is valid. There's an abundant amount of movies/fiction that robotic police exist. Off the top of my head for now I can think of Wall-E, Doraemon etc etc. Dengero (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Robot. The article is just speculation about what future robotic police officers (RPO?) might be like, plus some examples from fiction.  There is no overall discussion of the topic in the article or in the  sources. BigJim707 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article should be improved. --Hydao (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/Rewrite: Keep the article, get rid of the speculation about real use in the future. /Julle (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the fictional examples are just that. Some are serious science fiction speculation and some are just cartoon characters. One mention in Robot or Robots in fiction would be enough to say that police work is one of the jobs fictional robots sometimes do. BigJim707 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The fictional items and the speculation about real future developments are two entirely unrelated issues. This article lacks a unified topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:CRYSTAL reads
 * Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
 * This article is about the hypothetical use of robotic police officers in the future, not their use as a device in fiction. Two of the references are articles propose that robot police could be a reality in 75 years. If we want to write Robotic police officers in fiction then we should, but we shouldn't pretend that this article isn't pure speculation. --Djohns21 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have to wait 75 years in order to write an article about robotic police officers. I waited 12 years to play Duke Nukem Forever (on any console/computer system) and the wait was almost brutal. It's time for Wikipedia to predict the technological trends of the future; not wait for them to unfold before writing articles about them. GVnayR (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why it should be rewritten, and instead cover the use of them in fiction. /Julle (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So instead of deleting it or changing the article name, I will remove all the speculation material immediately and keep only the informating regarding their use in fiction. Maybe this will be the perfect solution. GVnayR (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does a book written by a physicist who has interviewed many people who specialise in their field on their predictions make the material WP:CRYSTAL? What about other books?-- Σ  talk  contribs  04:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete original research ("could also be described as"), WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation ("as of 2011, X does not exist in reality"), and otherwise synthesis. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just removed the ("as of 2011, X does not exist in reality") part of it. Now, the article shouldn't be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL ball anymore. GVnayR (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It only shows how flimsy the article is. It's now a source to a movie review of robocop, plus a synthesis of unsourced statements about robot cops in other movies. This will never be anything more than what it is: a WP:SYNthesis of various observations users have gleaned from movies. WP:CANTFIX so delete. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete What's next? Robotic garbagemen (they had that in Wall-e)? Robotic whores (they had that in A.I.)? Robotic science officers (they had that in Alien)? The fact is, you can make a robot perform almost any job in the future, and futuristic robotic police officers aren't any more special at the moment than other robots. – sgeureka t•c 08:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except if a case could be made that the robotic police officer is in fact a recurring theme in fiction and speculation about the future, with certain implications regarding legal protection et cetera, in a way that isn't true for robotic garbagemen. /Julle (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. We do not need an article to tell us that there are robot cops, and robot something others, in sci-fi films. Any content like this belongs on the list of fictional robots or in Robocop.There seems to be no third party coverage of the topic of robot cops as such, outside Robocop, so the subject fails WP:GNG.  Sandstein   04:56, 15 August 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.