Talk:Lawnbott

From WP:AN: Someone deleted a broken link today to an article that didn't exist yet, Lawnbott (that's a robotic lawnmower), so I replaced the link and wrote the Lawnbott article. I had already written an article on the subject on robots.wikia.com last month. It was immediately tagged...rightly so...as not listing sufficient sources to establish notability. But how do we establish notability for a commercial robot? Offhand, I can only think of one time a CEO of a home robotics company has admitted to sales figures (a year ago, 2.5 million Roombas shipped, see robots.wikia.com for the cite). Roboticists (at least, the ones I listen to) will tell you that most academic and journalistic reviews of new commercial robots are completely unreliable, it's much better to get a report from an individual or group that you know to be reliable who has tested the product. But "Joe over at Engadget says..." is not the kind of cite that WP likes to rely on. This problem has similarities to the problems lawyers face when using "precedent" to argue a case about satellites or intellectual property law...it's well-known that you get some very silly results. Likewise, if we tag robotics articles because they don't cite the same kinds of sources that would be appropriate for history articles, we're going to get some silly results.

I don't really expect to have any great difficulty with this issue, but I am inviting comment. What I've done for the moment is to leave the "primary sources" tag in place on Lawnbott and replace the "notability" tag with the "expert-subject | robotics" tag, per WP:NOTE#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. I'm going to intentionally leave tags in place and some things undone on robotics articles for a little while and see if I can get some cooperation from new robotics editors. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on WP:AN, there seems to be plenty of good material here that you could use to expand and source your article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Friendly Robotics (Robomower), Zucchetti Centro Sistemi (Ambrogio/LawnBott) and their distributors are privately held companies their sales numbers are highly suspect. In fact as the leading robotic lawnmower dealer in the U.S. I will say they are extermely exaggerated. So therefore should not be published even if quoted from another source.

I have physically tested and repaired every Robomower RL model and LawnBott as well as testing and breaking down the Husqvarna Automower. I have tested these models from optimal to extreme conditions. My reviews are heralded world wide through blogs and messages boards as accurate. Does this qualify me as expert or 'qualified consultant' on robotic lawnmowers?

As far as notability, that should not be difficult with the vast numbers of articles written in local newspapers as well as blogs. They have articles in the New York Times to the Birmingham News. The new LB3500 has Bluetooth programming and remote control. The LB1200/Spyder does not use a perimter wire. How distinct is that in the robotic field? Bamabots (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>exaggerated

Noted, I just added the word "reliable" to make that clear.

>expert

I don't think Bamabots is blowing smoke here, guys. For the last two years, I don't think I've ever seen stuff in his reviews contradicted by other reviewers, and that's not because he was succinct :) On the other hand, Bamabots, understand that my word, as a non-expert, doesn't do you a lot of good...it is always helpful when other experts (even competitors!) add their views.

>notability

A good article to read is WP:NOTE. The summary is: you don't need to prove a ton of "notability", just enough to stop people from deleting your article for lack of, well, notability. A couple of newspaper articles about the Spyder (hopefully from well-known newspapers and online news sites, but we'll take what we can get), together with the WikiProject Robotics tag (which suggests that knowledgeable people are checking up on this), should get you past the gatekeepers. Once the notability requirement is met and the article is created, then how "important" the subject is becomes relevant.

In fact, I'll go create a Spyder article today...probably better for me to do it than for you to do it, since you will be selling them, see WP:COI. But after I've got it started, please feel free to tell us all about them, and cite your sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*There seems to be agreement that changes are needed in robotic lawnmower articles; I propose to combine them all into one article by the end of the week, if no one objects. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I should be getting in new reliable source material any day now. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied at Robomower) Well ... the new material never materialized. On p. 23 of the May Consumer Reports, there's an article about safety issues in the Lawnbott. I keep hearing news that the Spyder will be out any day, but nothing shows up in news.google.com. Robomower is due for some upgrades, but that hasn't happened either. It's frustrating; I'll put off work on this article until solid information shows up. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]