Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUBIOS Robot Operating System Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RUBIOS_Robot_Operating_System
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.
Delete I'd thought I'd heard of this before, but as proven below, this is WP:AUTO (isn't it great people don't change their names on WP?) and nothing relevant when Googling rubios robot -rubio -site:ucsd.edu. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - those academic references are all by the same party: the party that created this product, and likely the party that also created this article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note -I led the development of RUBIOS and created the article. I'm puzzled by the comments expressed here. There is a similar article describing the Microsoft Robotics Studio and it did not seem to create any problems. Yet the article describing RUBIOS, an open source alternative, is nailed down because of accusations of self promotion? I thought the whole point of the wikipedia is that people can express their views and make edits at will. I encourage those who are expressing so strong opinions to try RUBIOS, compare to alternative products, like the Microsoft Robotics Studio, and express their views. In the process I fail to understand the logic under which this article shall be censored but the equivalent Microsoft article should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movellan (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're incorrect, Wikipedia is not for the purposes you describe above, you can read about what wikipedia is for here. Wikipedia is not a product review site, nor a vehicle for evening up the market between M$ and the open source movement. Microsoft has an article simply because Microsoft are a notable organisation (I haven't even read that article btw). But every article has stand on its own merits compared to wikipedia's policies, it cannot be saved because because other stuff exists. MickMacNee (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note -I just read the Wikipedia COI policy. I understand better now the concerns expressed above. I do not hide the fact that I led the development of RUBIOS and wrote the RUBIOS page. I included the references only because it seemed to be a requirement, not because I intended to self-promote. I'd actually prefer to delete them. I also don't care about evening up the market between MS and the open source community. The intent of this page is to inform people about RUBIOS, keep track of its evolution and its use, and show how it relates to other related robotics projects. Articles with similar purposes related to other robotic suites seem to have been accepted without a problem. One thing I love about the Wikipedia is the the distributed/collaborative editing, and with the fact that there may be a diversity of opinions expressed on the article, some positive, some negative. In fact this discussion is a good example of why I wrote the article to begin with. If there are specific things about the article that are considered problematic I'd be glad to address them. If the fact that I led the development of RUBIOS disqualifies me from writing the article, I will delete it. Frankly I just don't see much of a difference between the RUBIOS article and the already existing articles on other robotic suites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movellan (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being the author doesn't necessarily preclude you from contributing, but it limits your ability to judge the notability of RUBIOS as an entity. Due to the nature of the open source movement, there are articles created all the time about this or that, they all have to be justified on their own merits. Wikipedia is not desinged to be a record of the development of a project if its starting point is relative obscurity. Pointing out other non-notable articles merely usualy has the effect of highlighting these articles to others who will put them up for deletion if they think its appropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I understand your points. I tried to modify the site to show how it relates to other similar scientific projects. I don't believe the other articles are non-notable. The following feature about RUBI from NPR may also help explain the context of the project that RUBIOS drives NPR . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movellan (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have concerns about this process. Robots are likely to become a key technology in daily life the ways personal computers became a key technology in the eighties. This article documents one of the early robot suites that tries to tackle the many problems the robotics community are encountering. Documenting this history is important and we owed it to future generations. Many of these early attempts may end up being non-notable but some will. I think that none of us, including me, Evil Spartan and friends, are qualified at this point to label these early attempts as notable or non-notable. We should also be really careful about deleting work that could be useful to understand the history of everyday robotics. Movellan (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not demonstrate notability. Sources discuss the RUBI project (which might be an approriate subuject for an article) rather than the RUBIOS software. Claim that subject may be notable in the future is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (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.