Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aibotteam

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 of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aibotteam

Relevant policy: WP:CORP

Advertisement, no indication of being notable. Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. (Please watch for sockpuppets in this vote.) -AED 07:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --blue520 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The name in question is a proper name of a group involved in Natural Language Processing, it in fact is mentioned in some printed matters (unfortunately not available on-line, but nevertheless it indicates notability). The article follows the "neutral point of view rule" so it should be not considered an advertisement. 84.40.142.82 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you cite these sources in the article (see WP:CITE) and explain what specific notability criterion of WP:CORP this company (or group, or whatever) fulfils. Sandstein 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think that the non-notability applies if this entity is said to be mentioned in print, isn't it ? Mobster lobster 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) — This is this user's first and to date only edit. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Being mentioned in print" is not enough. As per WP:CORP, the corporation must have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." Please cite these sources in the article. Sandstein 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not familiar with the publications mentioned (if there are any) but I've checked google and there are no other companies using this name, so I think this article can stay as there is no risk of misinformation. 213.158.197.33 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Misinformation is not the problem. Notability is. Read WP:CORP. Sandstein 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki is about providing information, not about conducting lawsuits. Sandstein, you probably noticed that most people talking here are satisfied with this article. Or maybe they are far more interested in efforts in the NLP (even very tiny ones) than in your personal vendetta :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.241.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep As above. I would really see the article here. Leave it alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.77.194 (talk • contribs)
    • You're going to have to provide some better reason than that. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Vox populi vox dei ;)) ...and I don't think this entry is in conflict with Wikipedia spirit 64.9.205.95 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The article is nothing. No meaningful text, not sourced, and seems to be completely non-notable. Wstaffor 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, the article is small, but it links to an interesting site. My suggestion is that the authors copy some content (eg. more details on the algorithms or the approach they use) from their www to make the article more informative. 64.9.205.95 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please keep copyright considerations in mind. Cutting and pasting is frowned upon unless it's from a website that has released its content into the public domain and/or GFDL or equivalent. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Double vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. To the contrary. In the discussion this name was said to be quoted so I guess it is notable. 05:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.77.194 (talk • contribs)
  • Obvious delete Not only is no assertion of notability made, but none could be essayed; even were the article fully developed, the subject would still be non-notable per WP:CORP. I concur with Sandstein and AED that one must watch sockpuppetry here. Joe 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:CORP refers to 'companies and corporations' (which I understand as commercial organizations), I have visited the webpage provided in this article and it seems that this entity is a non-commercial group (at least so far their products are available for free) so I guess this article should be exempt from the WP:CORP—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.197.33 (talk • contribs)
    • Non-profit corporations are still corporations. I don't see how the notability guidelines don't apply here. Under what criteria would a non-profit be notable where a for-profit wouldn't be? Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per the above unsigned individual. Not familiar with the company but it reads as a non-profit organization. Almost Famous 07:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with the exemption. But PLEASE expand the content. Mobster lobster 07:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Mobster lobster, you voted already above. Please stop the sockpuppetry, it's not helping you. We can see if a user is very new and the administrators will discount such opinions. As to the company, it does look very much like a for-profit entity (with links like "Portal for Business Partners" etc.) and even if it were not, it would still have to establish notability. Sandstein 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that I am new here does not mean that I cannot state my opinion. Is this place for people who search for informatio or for people who spend their time harrasing other people ? Sorry for the double voting, but double voting is NOT a sockpupettery ("A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name.", I use only one, the undersigned). Moreover I suspect you Sandstein (a.k.a. Fagstein, not to mention TheBernFiles on Wikimedia Commons, am I right ?) that you use sockpuppetery yourself. I would suggest that the authors re-classify the article to something less controversial like 'non-profit organizations' or move to a domain-related classification (like: 'search techniques' or 'NLP'). Mobster lobster 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Nice try though. Check our edit histories. Fagstein 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate vote crossed out. Fagstein 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As above. 83.27.118.57 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What with this edit histories ? I don't think I understand :((( Mobster lobster 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit histories (also known as User contributions) are a usefull test for sock puppety (not for meat puppets though), if the edit times over lap then it is very dificult for the two users to be puppet and master. For example if you check the edit histories for Fagstein and Sandstein you would find at least one over lap, with the edits at 05:10 (UTC) on 7 April 2006.--blue520 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable - rampant sock puppetry in this discussion is also a concern Barneyboo (Talk) 08:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure this is the sockpuppettery ? Please show some evidence, because without any your comment sounds just like pure insult.
  • I agree that unless some evidence is given the accusations of sockpuppettery are a nuisance. As for the discussion I would Keep the article provided some more content is supplied by the authors. I think that Wikipedia should promote the efforts in the machine processing of natural language. Keep up the good work ! 83.16.100.150 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sifl and Olly would be proud of their brethern here, though.  RasputinAXP  c 17:20, 19 April 2006 (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.