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.
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)reply
Please note the user account above me is 3 days old and has made only 31 other edits. Also, look into the page history.
NytharT.C16:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. czar19:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
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)reply
Please note the user account above me is 3 days old and has made only 31 other edits. Also, look into the page history.
NytharT.C16:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. czar19:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.