Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reset Robotics

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. Sandstein 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reset Robotics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No evidence of notability, virtually unsourced. The few sources seem to fail primary. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Issues have since been fixed. BenDSterling (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- NO they have not been, we need independent RS (with in depth coverage) establishing notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the Notability Guidelines, “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” This article meets that criteria (although it should be mentioned that most of this coverage is not listed in the article. I would recommend to the author to add more coverage examples to the article). It only took 5 seconds of googling to find dozens of 3rd part sources covering “Reset Robotics”. PrajPraj (talk)

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Issues have since been fixed. BenDSterling (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Although article can use improvements, it does not meet the requirements for deletion. BenDSterling (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - You are welcome to comment as many times as you wish, but please use the indicator "comment" or something else instead of "keep" as it appears to be a duplicate !vote. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 13:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Article does not violate any copyrights, has verifiable sources, and is notable. PrajPraj (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Vote from sock puppet struck. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenDSterling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the sources independent, they all look primary or non notable to me?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - FirstInspires.org is the official site for the competition. All information on there is official. It is a primary source. The Blue Alliance is a notable and well respected site for competition results, which can be verified by looking at the raw event data. The Blue Alliance is not a primary source, but has been verified. The only non-verifiable source (that I see) is the ResetRobotics.org website. PrajPraj (talk)

Note BenDSterling is a single purpose account that may well have a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BenDSterling is the Author of the article. However besides that, I don’t see any other conflicts of interest. PrajPraj (talk)
- If by single use, you mean this is my first article, than yes. But I certainly did not create this account with the sole purpose of writing this. And if by COI, you are talking about how I wrote this article, then yes. But other than that there is no conflict. I am simply a member of the FIRST robotics community and wanted to write an article about a well-known team. I plan on writing articles about other well-known teams as well in the near future. BenDSterling (talk) 4:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmitigated trivia stuffed full of COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.