Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motus Drone


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Motus Drone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable company. After stating the company's name and nationality none of rest of the content of the article content or the references is about the company or its products. A WP:BEFORE search on Google delivered no usable results. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: nothing substantial in article to assert notability, Google gives very little, references in article don't mention the company, they're just listicles. crh23 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: The company’s own website doesn’t even show up in a Google search, let alone any secondary sources to establish notability. giso6150 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maintain the article: Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers. Wikipedia, for many years, has a bad reputation because those individuals. Asking for "deletion" is an extrem mesure, especially in this case, because the article is not offensive at all. In fact, it has, today, six references, based on different sources. Give the author the chance to gradually improve the article. Wikipedia's sources are voluntary contributors, not professional writers. So, you should be very cautious before considering an article for deletion. Lots of Wikipedia's articles are about enterprises, corporations and individuals. Not all of them are popular or famous. And not all the articles on Wikipedia are totally conform to its edition policy. So, just remember our Freedom of Speech. Energyelectrofree
 * This obviously can't be taken seriously for saving the article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Energyelectrofree, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules, especially the ideas of neutral point of view and notability. Swistertwister, please don't bite the newbies. JHCaufield - talk - 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bite the newbies? "Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers" is egregiously uncivil, a baseless personal attack, and I'm issuing a civility warning to Energyelectrofree, accordingly. I see he'd never been warned for removing the Afd tag with an edit summary that is another personal attack, so I've issued another warning, which is his 3rd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shawn. The last time I looked, WP:BITE didn't say we're obliged to roll out the red carpet for aggressive COI editors. Nobody has bitten them. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete There is nothing to indicate notability for this outfit, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There is little to indicate notability on a Worldwide scale, much less notable to the English-speaking world. plus advertising Winterysteppe (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete: PROD was removed by creator of the article.  First reference is the company itself, second and third provide the definition of the latin term motus and a generic description of a drone.  Last three references are about uses of drones but do not reference the company, as far as I can tell.  Nothing sufficient to support a claim of notability.  EdChem (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2016 (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.