Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inkha

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inkha

Inkha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Lacks notability - being on Blue Peter doesn't make someone notable, no evidence the appearance in newspaper/magazine was vast.--Moglex 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom - WP:N. /Blaxthos 13:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lacks notability for stand-alone. I wonder if there's a larger article that could bear mention? It obviously doesn't fit in Domestic robot and Industrial robot. It's too specific for inclusion in Robot, which page needs really to address general categories and ground-breaking prototypes. --Moonriddengirl 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Does anyone even try to look for sources before saying sources are impossible to find? Inkha got an article in Nature (behind a subscription wall but the link is here [1]) and the BBC in connection with the Faraday Lecture [2] in addition to the Blue Peter appearance. It's in front of house magazine [3], a trade magazine for receptionists (who knew?) and, oh yeah, The Times [4] ran an article on it too. Here [5] is an article in the Deccan Herald, an Indian newspaper. Nick mallory 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I didn't see anybody above stating that sources were impossible to find. :) I looked for them, and I read a few. General notability guideline notes that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." It's one of several similar devices mentioned in the BBC article, Front of House and times. That's why I suggested it would be better in an article about a robot type. I didn't see the Deccan Herald article. I'm not sure it's a strong contender. At this point, I still believe Inkha lacks notable for a stand-alone. --Moonriddengirl 14:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You said 'delete per nom'. The Nom said there was 'no evidence' that the coverage of it was 'vast'. Well, it doesn't have to be 'vast', whatever that means, it just has to pass WP:N. So does it? Well, it's got multiple independent coverage in credible third party sources including the BBC (twice) and the Times.

The Times said this about it "JUST before Christmas, Inkha got a job as a receptionist at King’s College London. She has all the prerequisites for the post: she can talk about the weather, give directions and look bored. But Inkha is a robotic head — her name stands for Interactive Neurotic King’s Head Assembly — that glowers from a glass box at the college’s Strand campus.

Her creator, Matthew Walker, a college alumnus and now an independent animatronics consultant, says her “mood” depends on the weather (she culls meteorological information from the Met Office website) and the time of day. Walker says: “If it’s a rainy Monday morning, she’s obnoxious. If you ask her for fashion tips, she’ll ask you if you got dressed in the dark.

“She has no intelligence, but certain behaviour makes her quite lifelike. People do get rather attached to her.” It helps that Inkha has a huge red pouting mouth and large, long-lashed eyes, the latter made for her by a specialist at Moorfields Eye Hospital.

But Inkha also deals with around a third of reception inquiries — mainly providing directions — and has cheered everyone up. “People come in looking glum and go away smiling,” Walker says. “And the other people on reception don’t feel threatened — they see her as an aid rather than as a replacement.” It's hardly just a passing mention.

It was covered as far away as India in the media so it's hardly just of local interest. How many more sources are needed? This makes it notable enough per Wikipedia standards WP:N for its own article. Nick mallory 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, but nom said coverage was not vast, not that it was absent. At the moment, I still support that reading. The Times article linked leads with three paragraphs about Inkha, but the majority of the piece is on "a much more calculating "scientist"...outperforming graduate students." There's no question that Inkha has attracted some attention, but notability is distinct from fame. (adding: I'm not sure you need to quote the Times piece; I think the link is probably sufficient.) --Moonriddengirl 14:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You implied the Times article was only a passing mention, i'm showing that it wasn't. You can't say that it's too long to quote here but not long enough to quote as a source. WP:N says it should have multiple independent coverage, it's got that, i don't see what the problem is. Nick mallory 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that. What I said was that it is one of several similar devices mentioned; it is. I can understand how the word "mentioned" might have been misleading in regards to my intention; perhaps I should have said "discussed." Anyway, the problem with quoting it here is that it becomes more difficult for people involved in the discussion to follow it. That's why the link is sufficient. My issue with Inkha's coverage is breadth & depth, as I stated above. Also of potential interest in this discussion is duration. I don't feel Inkha satisfies notability requirements for a stand alone article. Obviously your opinion differs. Other editors will undoubtedly weigh in. --Moonriddengirl 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nice name by the way. Nick mallory 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had occasion to wonder if including the name "girl" in my username was such a good idea, but oh well. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Nick mallory sources. - Fosnez 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources provided by Nick Mallory are easily sufficient. —David Eppstein 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if the rationale doesn't fit, you must acquit. Artw 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a good article. Well, the article should be improved in the future. This article is good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 13:02, 4 September 2007 (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.