Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang-bang robot

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. Merger discussion can take place on talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bang-bang robot[edit]

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

Highly specialized term for a class of robots, the content could easily be merged to SMT placement equipment, which i was inclined to simply do, but thought a small discussion might be warranted. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - probably to SMT placement equipment as nom says. There isn't enough here to justify an article; on the other hand, deletion doesn't seem appropriate either, so it needn't really have come here to AfD, merging would be enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bang-bang is a control technique for robots and so quite a different topic from the purpose to which the robots are put. SMT assembly is a very particular application so is not at all suitable as a merge target. A page which could use some content about different control schemes is robot control. Warden (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Possibly to the Section "Control techniques" (which I didn't find) in the Article "Robot". Or delete, this one is not an article but a stub consisting of two sentences, the first beeing a word-by-word 100% paste of the content of its very reference, a copyright problem, I would say. --46.115.44.162 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin Robot[reply]

Keep It is a stub, but the article deserves to stand for one simple reason - it is a field of robotics and type of robot in its own right. As such it deserves a separate page, and indeed a stub can be as small as one or two sentences "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text ...".

There is no need to delete it as it can be expanded, and if deleted will only need to be re-created again. It is a copyvio though, and needs rewriting. It cannot really be merged with anything, and its lack of an entry on the Robot article probably reflects that it is such a small part of robotics, though many were made, that it does not really need to be mentioned on such a wide-scope article. The other problem, as Colonel W says, is that the control technique should also be included. There are many sources that can be used, such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. I will endeavour to expand this later tonight or tomorrow.

First, I will fix the copyvio issue immediately. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to fix the copyvio and expanded it and added refs. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 23 July 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.