Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parrot AR.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   speedy keep. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Parrot AR.Drone

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A quadricopter toy. If it had a camera with a decent resolution (they are only 640x480), I might think about buying one! No evidence of notabilty. &mdash; RHaworth 05:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , , , , and . Joe Chill (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I was too lazy to start this myself, I am glad someone else did. Its been in every paper and news show since the introduction at a trade show. The nominator could have looked at the 216,000 GHits or the 610 GNewsHits, and maybe read one or two first, before the nomination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Nominator happens to be an admin... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment : Just a note that, it is a first time product. The camera will improve as time goes on.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep : This is a first time product, no others exist... If this was non-notable then even iPod fails the notability test... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting technology, and probably the start of a whole series of such toys. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why is it when I use Google news it doesn't show anything? Joe Chill's links work, it called "parrot ar.drone" in the news articles.   D r e a m Focus  05:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been having trouble with Google News for a few weeks now. For the New York Times I can find the links to an article through the Google web search, but they I haven't been able to find the same article in Google News. Some tinkering by Google must be going on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Joe Chill, I see sufficient sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joe Chill, had detailed coverage in quality independent sources such as the Guardian link thats added to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2010 (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.