Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Rex (RC helicopter)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC) This page should never have been removed!

It is very usefull for people who want to build a trex of a specific type/version, and is far from promotional; it is very useful and needed info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.179.62 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

T-Rex (RC helicopter)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Declined PROD. Ironically, the PROD decliner provided even more of a reason for deletion... My original rationaile for prodding is that this line of model aircraft does not meet the notability standards for a Wikipedia article, in addition to smelling somewhat promotional. The editor who removed the prod gave the following edit summary:

"I have removed the request for deletion, as this is a single source regarding specific models not found elsewhere on the web or the manufacturers site"

...which implies that large portions of the article may be unverifiable original research in addition to being non-notable. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The cited German booklets probably provide notability for two specific models of this model helicopter, but not for the line as a whole. And the other cited sources cannot carry the article as a whole; there's not enough there to meet WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Weak keep - For the level of detail in the article, I find it surprising that there aren't reliable sources providing some of this. There are a lot of links to buy it, and there are a few youtube videos showing people flying them too. I found a reference in a book (ISBN 0857296345) (can't see full content) to the model. It's hard to find references because the "t-rex" name is so common. I am concerned about original research in the article, but I'm leaning keep because I think there's more here beneath the surface. I regrettably can't find anything slam-dunk right now though. Shadowjams (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable model and most of it is most likely original research if not verifiable. Seasider91 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable just one of many similar toys on the market. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2012 (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.