Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyTech Dragonfly (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FlyTech Dragonfly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable toy. It has received no coverage outside of the usual "new product!" blurbs - WP:GNG is not met. The article is basically promotional in purpose (if not quite, perhaps, in tone). The company is notable, but the specific product is not. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selective Merge to WowWee, the toy's creator, which will enhance the merge target article.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to WowWee. Seven years or so have gone by since the first AfD discussion and this toy has not grown a mass off encyclopedic information. But it is still selling so full deletion seems a bit harsh. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing a whole lot of sources to satisfy WP:GNG, including serious reviews in high-profile publications. PCMag (Feb 2007), Popular Mechanics (notes that it won a Popular Mechanics Editor's Choice Award at CES) (no date, but it's CES coverage so Jan 2007), Wired (Dec 2006), IGN (March 2007), Engadget did a series of articles on it (Reveal (Dec 2006), Hands-on (Dec 2006), Review (Feb 2007), Release (Feb 2007), Chopped in half (March 2007)), TechCrunch (Feb 2008), SlashGear (Feb 2007), Geek.com (July 2007), Gizmodo (March 2007)...and I don't feel like I've exhausted search results yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's two important questions about those sources. Are they just regurgitating the company's press release in a "hey, here's a cool new tech product!" fashion? And is there any WP:PERSISTENCE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added month/years to the sources above. Obviously there's going to be a concentration around the time of it's release. As a product (as opposed to, say, an event), I think the presumption is that the coverage is going to be predominantly around its release -- that's why so many e.g. album articles frequently base notability just on reviews. Still, while concentrated in Feb/Mar of 2007, it's spread over a few other months too. All told, I'm quite comfortable saying it passes WP:GNG. As for regurgitating press release, you might say that the very earliest one or two is based on press release-driven excitement, but the reviews are at reputable sources of reviews. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG upon a review of sources presented above. Struck my first !vote above. Also note that WP:PERSISTENCE applies to events, not to products. See also WP:NTEMP; notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by sources found by Rhododendrites. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2016 (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.