Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self reconfigurable

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Self reconfigurable
Appears to be advertising for someone's patent portfolio. -- The Anome 10:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * {I'm assuming I'm permitted to add my comment here-author of "self reconfigurable"}
 * My understanding is that these are the keywords one would probably :want to use for this concept; if deleted, please add a request to create an article in its place. Here are some external links that might be useful for such an article:
 * http://discuss.foresight.org/~josh/Ufog.html
 * http://www2.parc.com/spl/projects/modrobots/
 * http://robotics.stanford.edu/users/mark/polypod.html


 * I've rewritten the intro, and removed the external link universalmodular.info, which might be regarded as advertising and didn't seem very helpful anyway. I think it should be Kept as a stub for a real concept which gets 5,300 google hits . Kappa 11:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Could we have a hyphen between the two parts please? Berek 12:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The original article was an awful advertisement, but the rewritten article rocks. Well done, Kappa.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Fascinating little read. --Steven Fisher 06:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. That's a phenomenal save, Kappa!! - Lucky 6.9 20:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.