Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyTech Dragonfly


 * 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   Keep, with a possible Merge in order. (that's for the talkpages - don't need afd for that) Either way, no advocates for deletion presently. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FlyTech Dragonfly

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is more like an advert than a serious encyclopedia article -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are links to two reviews (I question the reliability of one, but the other is from The New York Times).  I've found three reviews on tech sites, a (somewhat brief) review in Time, and an article in Popular Mechanics, all of which are specifically about this product.  (I'm a tad iffy about depth of coverage, but how much do you expect?  It's a toy.)  That said, this article desperately needs a major rewrite.   Anturiaethwr  Talk  15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge May I suggest we be bold on this and all the other WowWee related articles up for deletion. Let's get Bold together and merge them into one non-spammy article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Jasynnash2, fix JediLofty's justified criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up. There are plenty of great cites in the article. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable, interesting, mentioned in significant press. --Oldak Quill 16:20, 8 May 2008 (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.