Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chobham 2.0

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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chobham 2.0

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

This is a page that was added by its creator for an arena robot entered into a competition that doesn't even have its own page. A search did not bring up anything to show that this entry was or is notable, and the sources currently on the page are primary ones from the creator's website. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page does appear to be added by the creator. However it appears that new references have been posted that validate the entry. Randy.geer (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to ask, but are you Tipparish? I've noticed you commenting on the other article up for deletion by Tipparish where your comments have been gone over and signed by Tipparish. Please understand that while it's not against the rules to have multiple accounts, you need to up front and honest about the fact that you are using multiple accounts and that you are indeed the same person. Otherwise it just looks like you're creating multiple accounts to vote on AfDs, which isn't necessary. These things aren't decided on votes and there's nothing wrong with an article creator contributing to an AfD discussion. Sorry to be so blunt, but I want to make sure that you're aware of this and how things of this nature can appear. If you aren't Tipparish and are someone that he knows coming on here to vote, you should be up front about this as well since it'd be a conflict of interest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources on the article are as follows:

[1] A youtube video uploaded by a random user. Does not show notability. Youtube videos can only show notability if it's by someone that's considered to be reliable. Basically, you can't just show footage of an event and claim it's notable. You'd have to show the creator and the bot as the focus of a show or interview that's considered notable per Wikipedia policies.
[2] A builder database. Does not show any sort of notability since it seems to be the type that anyone can join and add to, nor does it appear to be a reliable source in the slightest.
[3] This is just a search on youtube for Chobham 2.0. This doesn't show notability in the slightest as there's not even a reliable source among them, just stuff that was uploaded by people that are ultimately considered to be non-notable by Wikipedia. I can upload video of my neighbor's cat to YouTube, but that doesn't make him notable regardless of how many I upload. (Not that there are that many listed in this search to begin with. There's only about 20, almost all of which seem to be by the creator and people he knows.)
[4] This is just a listing of a battle bracket. Getting to a competition does not make the bot notable. Even if battle bots were subject to the same rules as WP:ATHLETE (which they're not), Chobham 2.0 did not make it past 2 battles. Merely being in a competition is not notability.
[5] This is a site where users can upload pictures of their bots. This shows absolutely no notability as anyone could upload pictures and besides, merely having a picture posted somewhere does not show notability.

None of these "sources" show any sort of notability and to be honest, none of them even come close to even being considered a reliable source. At the very, very most they could charitably be considered a primary source but absolutely none of them show any sort of notability in the slightest. This is ultimately someone's personal battle bot that they created, entered in a few competitions, didn't go very far, yet still decided to upload onto Wikipedia. Even if the bot had gotten onto a large and extremely well known event (akin to how well Robot Wars was known in its day), that still doesn't mean that the bot itself would have any notability outside of the event or show. This bot has no notability, not even within the span of arena robot combat, at least not as Wikipedia is concerned. To be honest, the only reason I didn't speedy this is because it didn't fit into any of the categories neatly enough for it to be guaranteed. (Most of the speedy categories deal more with people than things like this.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete The article is posted by the creator of the robot, however it appears based on the newly posted references that the claims of the robots armor and record appear to be accurate. Randy.geer

Moving this from the talk page of the article to here. Basically, none of the links in the article show notability and regardless of whether or not they're accurate, accuracy is not what I'm arguing here. What I'm arguing is notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with the nominator, this is simply not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no signicant secondary coverage to establish notability.--Charles (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PLEASE DELETE!!!!! The article does not meet the sites standards Tiparrish. —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The user Tiparrish is the original editor and requests a delete. There will be some cleanups of redirects. As far as claims of "inconsistently interprets standards and rules", I would respectfully request that Tiparrish state which rules and standards aren't being followed. The reason I nominated this was because it wasn't notable. Participating in an event does not show notability and none of the sources provided were considered to be reliable sources that show notability. They might show that the Chobham 2.0 exists but not that it is notable enough to warrant its own entry in Wikipedia. The standards of what is considered to be notable is actually pretty strict. Do I always think that the standards are fair? Not always, but they got that way because we had a lot of people that tried to upload articles that were clearly not notable, forcing Wikipedia to create more strict rules as to what is considered notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2012 (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.