Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claytronics

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 redirect‎ to Programmable matter with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Only one editor has provided a policy-based reason for a standalone article, and that isn't enough for a different result. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claytronics[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Mildly promotional article supported with only primary references, none more recent than 2009, to the work of a team at Carnegie Mellon University and Intel known as the Claytronics Project whose most recent publication was in 2014. (Though it is not likely COI-created, as most of the current content was added in 2010 by an IP from the University of Wisconsin–Madison as part of a class project.) The topic probably fails WP:GNG, but it is nonetheless synonymous with Self-reconfiguring modular robot and may be suitable for a redirect. The user who added the {{Primary sources}} tag in February 2021 noted:

While I don't doubt that the DARPA grant CMU & Intel team who worked on this (and wrote every source used on this page) knows what they're doing, we need some kind of third party review of this... especially given the apparent lack of new developments in this area. Then again, the sudden lack of new public papers after a certain point could mean DARPA decided they liked it and is blowing a few hundred billion to develop some vomit-inducing new form of weapon in which case it's probably classified and nobody can review it anyway.
— User:A Shortfall Of Gravitas 14:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Pennsylvania. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP for my money. The citations may be mostly to primary sources, but that's nit-picking. There are plenty of citations and from reputable sources. That the citations are not newer than 2009 is not really relevant to anything. Sprhodes (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Either to Self-reconfiguring modular robot or Programmable matter. The article as it stands presents it as a general concept but it's actually the name of a specific research project/group. The other two articles are the general concept. Some of the material could be merged into one of them. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mildly promotional, most sources are primary, but I would support a redirect if consensus was in favour of redirecting. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: A google scholar search does yield some results from after 2022, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's an active field of study anymore. As for non-primary sources, I was able to find this tech-radar article, and not much else. Based on my search, I think the more common term for this concept is programmable matter, for which we already have a decent article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it's not an active field of development any more doesn't seem like a reason for deletion. It does present a historical view of some interesting and novel work. Treat it like a history article, rather than a hot-new-breaking-cool-stuff thing. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-written article with multiple sources. Presents good explanatory and historical information (as noted in the iVote above) that would be difficult to incorporate into the more general articles mentioned. Also, this research effort doesn't appear to be currently very active, but that may change. Alan Islas (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to programmable matter I'm not seeing enough of a difference in the topics to support a fork. // Timothy :: talk 23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to programmable matter, to prevent WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to programmable matter, no need for a separate article on this particular form of programmable matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:39, 5 May 2023 (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.