Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WingtraOne


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WingtraOne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable spam article written by a declared connected contributor as an advertisement. It is excluded from Wikipedia both by WP:NOT and by failing WP:SPIP. The sourcing here is all trade press, blogs, and other recycled press releases. Even if it met our notability threshold (which it doesn't), it should be deleted as a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a product. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. A preliminary news search didn't show much more than PR release and non-notable blogs. Additionally, phrases like "WingtraOne product as available now" give me concern about the NPOV of the author. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  03:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep On the talk page of the article I had highlighted four sources that help establish notability here . Some of this is trade press stuff but mostly has bylines so generally considered reasonable sources. As for the other concerns, I assume this isn't WP:G11 unambiguously promotional or we wouldn't be here. Any other WP:PROMOTIONAL issues are not so severe as to require WP:TNT and can be fixed through editing. Also we don't delete things just because there are paid or COI editors involved. Drones are a hot topic and coverage of different models will be appreciated by readers. This is a young article that needs improvement, so let's improve it, not WP:DEMOLISH it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G11 is not the only way we can delete spam. See both WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. This AfC acceptance was grossly inappropriate and this article is actively harming Wikipedia. Yes, lets demolish it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Actively harming Wikipedia" - citation needed on this hyperbolic statement. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gladly, see WP:5P1 and WP:NOTSPAM, and WP:BOGO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion and this article was written by a connected editor to promote the subject. It is not notable and by helping their marketing department get top placement in Google we are undermining the credibility of this website. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When there is a policy that says WP:COI/WP:PAID editors may not edit at all, that will be a valid argument. Also, when you attempt to discredit another editor's argument on the basis of their citing only an essay, while citing an essay as a key part of your own argument, that says things. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * BOGO is not part of my argument for deletion, I would never use it as such. It was an answer to your question about how advertising actively hurts the project. Also, policy already covers this Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete ,,, Big spam on a big amount of advertising, this isn't helping anyone here. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean WP:PROMOTIONAL. If you want to advocate deleting for this reason you have to make a case for why it is better to delete than improve the current article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT and WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. Deletion is a perfectly acceptable choice for dealing with spam, and has become the default in XfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume the specific WP:NOT you're referring to is WP:PROMOTIONAL; Follow links and see if we're seeing the same thing here. I beleive WP:ATD gives more detailed and actionable advice than WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Deletion is a perfectly acceptable choice for dealing with spam, and has become the default in XfDs. Just because everybody's doing something doesn't make it right. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes it does. That is what consensus is. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I completely disagree with the line that "this AfC acceptance was grossly inappropriate" and to be honest I am slightly surprised to see it written by Tony. This draft is very borderline in terms of notability and it is not completely unreasonable to see a reviewer accepting this. I also ignored the promotionalism- that can be improved and doesn't require deleting the whole article to do so. The issue is that the subject is fundamentally not notable- the four sources listed above are what I judge to be insufficient and largely reprints of press releases, which don't help to demonstrate notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment regarding notability: one, while VTOL aircrafts e.g. Harrier Jump Jet have been experimented with and developed in the past, it has taken some time for this technology to translate to the realm of drones. Currently, professional drones either follow Fixed-wing aircraft design or Rotorcraft designs. Reason behind drafting this article was to throw some light on one of the few mature drone technologies that emulate VTOL design (i.e. hybrid of Fixed-wing aircraft and Rotorcraft design). That WingtraOne is notable in this regard can be verified with a simple search for "VTOL drones for surveying" etc. Secondly, some of the sources cited such as this one from Neue Zürcher Zeitung and  (edit: another independent source:  and its written summary ) are reputable, independent sources and not press releases, but perhaps not checked so far because of language/regional reasons. As the technology is based in Switzerland, there are reputable sources like these to be found in German (and WP:N does allow for sources other than English). Would also point to the editorial integrity of sources such as this one:  and this one: . For the technology itself, there are references to research papers published in IEEE, e.g., , . Would agree that the article can be improved with regards to WP:PROMOTIONAL and this is also indicated by the Start-Class label as assigned by Kvng, but would otherwise vote to keep as it talks about technology (VTOL drone) that is starting to mature and is likely to see more entries in the future. Adyasha D (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baby miss fortune 05:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. In general, "a specific type of aircraft that has flown" has been considered to be prima facie evidence of notability; the explosion of mini-/micro-/nano-/itsybitsyteenyweenie-drones has made that a bit wobbly in their situations, though, as radio-controlled aircraft do not count, in Wikipedia terms, as aircraft - where is the line between "aircraft" and "toy"? That said, once a little elbow grease was applied to some very simple formatting of the article, suddenly it looks much more like an article and much less like an advertisement. And while the WP:BOMBARDMENT of references does include a lot of the "not intellectually independent" types that are in vogue at AfD to be called out, I believe there is enough here - perhaps just enough, but enough nontheless - to establish WP:GNG compliance. The article does, in fact, need a lot more polish and pruning of the spamosity that is in the aforementioned bombardment, but AfD is not for cleanup - and, at this point, all that is needed is cleanup, not deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that there are no policy based reasons to keep? Considering that the notability guideline makes it clear failure of NOT is a reason for deletion. You also seem to be calling for us to ignore NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND because you want to allow non-independent sources to count. Deletion is not cleanup is an essay, and spam is not something that can be cleaned up. By allowing it here, we are actively undermining Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I beleive is making a WP:NOTCLEANUP argument. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is not policy based, correct. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Spam is not something that can be cleaned up" is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument: WP:SPAM, in fact, explicitly states: "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." - so Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines disagree with your assessment. The policy-based reason to keep is WP:PRESERVE. As for "WP:NOTCLEANUP is only an essay", WP:CONSENSUS - which said WP:ONLYESSAY documents - is policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * False, we delete spam per WP:DEL14 and WP:DON'T PRESERVE all the time. It is up for the participants in an AfD to determine whether it is worth doing that. Deletion of borderline notable topics because of promotionalism is becoming the normal consensus in AfDs. Additionally, ignoring the promo aspect if we shall, this article is entirely non-notable. My point with ONLYESSAY is that cute redirects that don't address the actual policy arguments for deletion (obvious failure of NOT, and failure of the GNG) are not valid arguments. If this survives AfD, it will be the exception to the norm, and will likely be back here within a few months, because as it stands now, there is no actual reason to include this in Wikipedia even from the most generous inclusionist standpoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Kvng and Bushranger. The article may have started bad, but it seems like it can be fixed to be a good addition to the 'pedia. Sario528 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have normally been very inclusive for vehicles of all sorts; I'm not sure we shoud apply it similarly to drones, but this is close enough  to notability . I do not consider the present version promotional beyond what is necessarily implied by the subject . DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I don't believe that unmanned vehicles should get the same benefit of the doubt (i.e. inclusivity). Otherwise, this is strictly promotionalism for a nn subject; the sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article on the product. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage exists in reliable trade publications for drones and GPS - meets WP:RS. I just added info from CeBIT; most coverage is in either academic or industry sources, with an absence of subjective promotional verbiage. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:12, 13 December 2017 (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.