Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAVIOUR (robot)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

SAVIOUR (robot)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  16:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Well I found that and was hopeful at first, but it seems to be a different robot entirely. The naming makes it virtually impossible to say for certain, but I've got nada.  G M G  talk   16:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not delete - You've got some other SAVIOUR link, that's not it. I was a member of the team (it seems an era ago), but here are some organizational pages that list the original SAVIOUR from GIKI as a team: NIST document and RoboCup 2009 site. Don't know if it counts for much, but here's a YouTube video from then, too. Most of the original links references in the articles are dead by now, but it's an actual project that existed, and doesn't hurt to keep the article there. 08:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC+5), Superphysics (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
 * Comment - Sorry to be harsh Superphysics, but both the sources you link to are pretty much the definition of routine passing mention, and don't really contribute anything at all to a claim of notability, which requires in-depth independent coverage. The two sources currently in the article are themselves not independent, and are broken links besides. The problem is that most of the substantive content in the article that would make it into an actual encyclopedia entry simply can't be sourced to anything at all currently, which is really at the heart of Wikipedia's standards for notability.   G M G  talk   14:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baby miss fortune 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources do not demonstrate notability. Didn't find anything supporting notability in my own search either. ~Kvng (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2017 (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.