Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-flite Blade CX


 * 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The result was WITHDRAWN. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

E-flite Blade CX

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No real references, reads like an advertisement, and unlikely to be notable. Withdrawn to allow PMDrive1061] time to improve. [[User:AliveFreeHappy|AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC) OK. I've left word on your talk page.  Waaay too late on my side of the planet to even think about fixing this right now, but I would appreciate being given the time to take another whack at it.  This is a very early entry of mine and even now it may prove difficult to describe this model without it coming off as an ad.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly not notable and no amount of tags can fix that. Pharmboy (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I just added a dead end and an orphant ag to it. This article is overflowed with tags should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmpandya (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As the original author of this article, I would ask that you reconsider what is notable and what is not. Did any of you actually take the time to do this?  I would say not.  I also find it interesting that the nominator, an administrator who apparently hadn't noticed that I'd retired the old account a year ago, seems to revel in the fact that because he hadn't heard of the product means he gets to hang non-notability notices on all my old work.  In the meantime, I'll enjoy getting paid to write and enjoy moving some real work to Veropedia.  Do with this what you will.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)  Sorry...didn't mean to WP:BITE.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It has nothing to do with whether or not an editor has heard of it. It has to do with guidelines such as WP:VER and WP:NOTE and WP:RS which explain very clearly what is and is not notable, and how to establish it. This article does not meet those criteria. It would help if you could clarify why you feel this is notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy to PMDrive1061. Strandwolf (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.