Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tello UAV


 * 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. The consensus seems to be that it would be better to start fresh with a new draft of this article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Tello UAV

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Written like an advertisement. This is a product; it doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. Nythar T . C 03:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nythar T . C  03:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Not written like an advertisement. It literally only states what it is. Upon a google search, this drone model seems to have a lot of writing about it, likely notable. Nominator should come up with better arguments rather than the lazy "doesn't seem notable".--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note the user account above me is 3 days old and has made only 31 other edits. Also, look into the page history. Nythar T . C 16:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, i see the edit history. Still the article as it was when you nominated it, was not an ad. Also your account is barely 3 months old...--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging both users. I returned the old version. Nythar T . C 19:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It does sound like an advertisement. Then again it is incredibly difficult to write about a product without making it sound like an advertisement. A good product sells its self. Not saying that this drone is a good product but hypothetically if it was a flawless product then a wikipedia article about it will function as advertising no matter how it is written. This can be lessened by adding more information about the drone such as analysis by others and their criticisms of this particular design if they exist. Also the wording of the article can be changed to sound less like an advertisement by delivering the same information in a more neutral tone and perhaps by excluding some of the information about how it compares to other drones on the market if that information is cited from the company themselves.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically all the sections that cite directly to material from Ryze Robotics should be stripped down to just basic factual specifications of the drone that are in now way opinionated.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article's history is a whole mess, even since it was pretty much blanked. There were sources previously, but it would cause more edit wars to revert it to how it was. Asparagusus   (interaction)  17:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Sources are press releases. It's a drone model, one of many. No substantial coverage in google beyond sales listings. GNG is far off, way off. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete with WP:TNT. This needs to be rewritten from reliable, secondary sources, which are not currently in the article. It's easy to write about products without it sounding like an advertisement as long as you're writing from reviews and not press releases. If this article topic is resubmitted, it should be through Articles for Creation so it can be reviewed. czar  19:23, 10 September 2022 (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.