|
|
[edit] Proposed Deletion
The article is a stub that contains information about why the article is notable. The reason has not yet been expanded upon. The reason it has not been expanded upon is that there are so many non-contributing editors throwing up tags and challenging content everywhere, that I'm tied up with bureacracy and have not had a chance to return to this article to improve it.
Nonetheless - You may go to the Peter Nordin page at Wikipedia as well as the evolutionary robotics page (both linked to the article page) to learn why his work is so extremely notable with the field of Artificial Intelligence and robotics. This in turn, is what actually makes information about the company notable.
- Again, rogerfgay, you are referring to your own contributions and/or your own external works while ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and accusing other contributors of being biased and committing personal attacks. If this 'institute' is really notable, please supply a good reference confirming this.
- / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Mats. Don't revert again. I understand that you're not satisfied with the explanation. Someone unfamiliar with the subject will likely not be satisfied until the article is expanded. Until then, you should take the word of someone who is familiar with the subject. Also; this stub is now listed with a Wikiproject and that will probably bring editors that are most familiar with development of business related articles. Do not remove the classification tag, etc. --Rogerfgay 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- BTW: Both this (maybe not till later) and Peter Nordin could use translation to Swedish for inclusion on the Swedish language Wikipedia. I read Swedish well, but don't think I'm the right person to write an article in Swedish. --Rogerfgay 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiproject templates go on talk page
Just making sure we're on the same page about this. nadav (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- "on the same page" - I get it! Actually, I was just picking up on that myself; based on the biography project template elsewhere. --Rogerfgay 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you change the position of the stub tag? Last time I put one lower in the page, I faced an angry mob that wanted it near the top. --Rogerfgay 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
I don't see any evidence of notability in this article. There need to be reliable secondary sources such as newspaper or journal articles added. If none can be found, I'll nominate the article for deletion to gain the community view. Kevin 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kevin. The page is currently a stub. I will add a few article links to it if you wish, sometime today. But please do not continue the above effort to delete the article before it's started. --Rogerfgay 08:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- What I want is some evidence of notability, per the guidelines at WP:CORP, which state (in part)
-
-
- A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability
-
- It is up to you to show such evidence. Until such time the {{notability}} should go back. Kevin 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll put in one or two external references, and remove the tag. Please note that Mats Halldin deleted the "under construction" tag when he added the notability challenge. I have now added a stub tag instead. Mats and N have me so tangled up in bureacracy at the moment, that I don't know when I'll be able to contribute more time to article development. Mats thinks that's a personal attack - but it's just a fact - and one I think I should point out in the hope that we can move toward more constructive efforts. --Rogerfgay 09:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- That seems to show the notability now. Nice work. I look at the "under construction" tags as a means to avoid edit conflicts for the short term, but leaving them on just to indicate that the article is not finished yet does annoy some people, who feel that it denotes ownership. I think the stub tag is more effective. Cheers Kevin 10:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
|
