Talk:Daxbot

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 25 April 2026 by reviewer StAnselm (talk · contribs).

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Robotics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WP:THREE for Daxbot

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My connection to the subject: Dax is popular in my hometown of Philomath, and my kids adore him.

I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria because it has received recent coverage in multiple news outlets, including CBS.

Here are three secondary, credible articles providing significant coverage to Daxbot.

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/video/daxbot-robots-support-sidewalk-safety-for-ada-compliance-in-burleson/

https://www.govtech.com/transportation/robots-are-measuring-ada-compliance-in-irvine-calif

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/meet-daxbot-the-robot-patrolling-parts-of-austin/ Skaers (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comments left by AfC reviewers

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP) but presently it is not clear that it does.
As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.
Please note that some of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc).
Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not.
The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage in trade publications for similar corporations (see WP:ROTM).
Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).
Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page.
It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").
Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply