Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expert Drones


 * 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 delete. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Expert Drones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD was removed by article creator. While at first glance there does seem to be coverage for the company, they all consist of "interviews with employees", which isn't exactly what you would call independent coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep Expert Drones appears notable and the company seems to be a mover and shaker in the drone market. This article should be kept as they are making a name for themselves in the new drone industry. It is worth keeping it because there will be a lot more information about this company coming out with some of the investment capital they have raised and activities occurring in the entertainment industry about their founders, which will be added when that information is released to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) — Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep got the bare minimum coverage but if it doesn't get more sources it should be up for deletion again sooner rather than later .Also is one of the more notable drone marketplaces   TypingInTheSky (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Sam Sailor Talk! 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete: The refs cited only interview the company CEO on regulatory issues, there is no significant coverage of the company itself, its history, operations, etc. There isn't enough here from non-primary refs to sustain an article. The article creator looks like a WP:COI case here to promote the company. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep clearly meets minimum WP:GNG based on multiple news sources citing company's contribution to the drone industry and when discussing drone regulatory requirements. One example is the 10-15 minute interview by ABC news. Article could include additional info about company operations to expand, but meets minimum standards for notability based on sources provided. Btalred1 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC) — Btalred1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Can you point out the "multiple" news sources? Specifically, I am wondering about the ones that talk about the company in depth, not just interviews or passing mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH, not really surprising considering the four-store chain only opened this year. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unfortunately, there are not enough in depth source that can establish WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A local station in D.C. does not really satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you point out the coverage you say proves it is a "big player?" I cannot locate anything, including what is already in the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - despite the numerous SPA !votes, searches do not turn up enough to show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH (Clarityfriend's point is pretty clear - no pun intended).  Onel 5969  TT me 13:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep, articles are enough to establish WP:GNG. Additionally, WP:CORPDEPTH is met based on the guidelines described in WP:CORPDEPTH that states: "multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Multiple sources are cited in this case. 2601:14D:8200:728B:9422:E95F:C11B:C37B (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually it isn't met. If you read the actual third party refs none of them profile the company. They are mostly interviews with the CEO about the nature of drones in general, not about the company. If we had to rely on the third party refs for the article we would only have one sentence. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Keep Comment, Meets GNG. Just ran a search and found another news source mentioning Expert Drones at an event in Las Vegas. Jdwicker12 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC) — Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Duplicate vote: Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.


 * Comment: Getting kind of desperate here, aren't we? That ref makes one passing mention that the CEO attended a show, still no profile of the company at all - nothing to base an article on. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment ahunt seemsto not realize that there are verified sources here. This company is one of the few drone companies I have had the opportunity to read about. With FAA regulations coming it is great to understand the history of existing drone companies and their impact.  I vote to keep. 166.171.59.74 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: My comments stands, there are no sources that profile the company at all here. All sources are just passing mentions, like this one that says the company was at a show, or quoting the CEO on general information about drones. There are no third parties sources on which to base an article. I have to also mention that the number of IPs who pop up here and make their very first edit as a "keep", is a concern that there are WP:COI issues at play. Whois all traces them to the same couple of US-based ISPs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Like many of the other contributors here, I disagree with ahunts comments, except that the article should reduce a few of the sources where the links only providing passing mention. Outside of that, there are plenty of sources here that describe the company. The article should be kept based on publicity around the general subject as well. If the article wants to add more to it, they can also reference the org website or manufacturer's website as this seems to be ok with ahunt for sources based on previous article he/she has contributed to regarding aircraft. Also, When I looked up the ISPs they resolve to different locations spanning across the U.S., so the odds of WP:COI is low. Still makes sense to keep this one up, but make a note that deletion may be required if articles without sources are deleted.Btalred1 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Btalred1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Which cited refs have a profile of the company? I am not seeing that. As far as your argument, "the article should be kept based on publicity around the general subject as well" goes see WP:Notability is not inherited. Basically just because "drones" are a popular subject does not make a specific company notable. As far as other articles go, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldn't find enough reliable coverage to make it pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORG.  Jim Car  ter  12:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH are not found. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator. Velic02c, Jdwicker12, and Btalred1 are ✅ socks. See Sockpuppet investigations/Velic02c.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister   talk  20:45, 13 November 2015 (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.