Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoboLaw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Secret account 03:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RoboLaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article should never have been accepted at AfC. It's a two-year project funded by the EU, though you'd never guess it from the article (see the history for more verbosity copied directly from the Request for Funding). Lack of references is obviously, lack of Google News hits makes it clear that this is not a notable thing. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because I agree with the analysis by Drmies, who does his homework. I am wondering how an article can wend its way through AfC without the article containing a single reference to a reliable, independent source? Are some of our AfC reviewers lacking a clue? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that an OTRS notice permits a chunk of text to be copied does not imply that it should be copied, especially when it is as indigestably non-encyclopaedic as this. However, while I'm tending to deletion on this rather typical looking EU FP article, I did find this article from The Economist (via Highbeam, sub reqd). AllyD (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC) There is also this piece from Wired. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cullen: yes, unfortunately. Good will is required to be working at AfC, as you probably know, and sometimes there's a bit much of it. AllyD, well spotted--thanks. But I don't think that "two articles and it's notable" is a good rule; what the Wired article will give us is a couple of nicely verified sentences in a main article. Don't feel like you can't vote delete cause you found two sources. :) Drmies (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable, per nom. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't spot any notability here using a UK Google perspective. I don't have full access to AllyD's perspective but what I've seen looks very, very thin and I am inclined to think that Drmies is correct in his response. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The Wired article and the Economist (I have Highbeam access) are both substantial coverage. Although I agree with that notability is not established by simply counting to two, in this case both the sources are beefy enough for me to say it squeaks past. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (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.