Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UltraFly Model Corporation

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. Scott Mac 12:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UltraFly Model Corporation[edit]

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

Subject does not appear notable. Has been tagged for notability and references for two years, and notability is still yet to be established. Reads like a press release. Taiwantaffy (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doggone it, Wikipedia is not paper and we encourage everyone to be bold and just write. The company is well-established, it's a major player in the hobby market (and I should know because I write reviews of hobby products for another site), its products are exported worldwide and the article, though it's one of my older ones, is well-outlined and is anything but a "press release." I don't gain a thing by "advertising" for this company. I've written countless articles and I can't keep track of them all; instead of nominating this for deletion, I would have appreciated a suggestion from the nominator to bring it up to snuff as opposed to a notice that the article had been shipped to AfD. I rarely resent the efforts of established editors, but I sure as shooting resent this nomination and I'll shut up while I'm ahead. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's the company's website if anyone's interested: [1]. I'm signing off before I type something I'll resent later. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cleaned up 350 articles associated with the Taiwan WikiProject. There's a fair bit of cruft in there that has no place on Wikipedia, and some of the articles (like this one) have been tagged as needing improvement for a long time without any improvements being made. I don't like to see articles disappear, but equally I don't like a lot of articles (tech companies and academics are the worst culprits from Taiwan) which are self-promotion for an otherwise non-notable entity. I've seen the company website, I've Googled their products, and I was sceptical about UltraFly meeting the notability criteria. If I'm wrong - great - a couple of solid references from reliable sources and I'll vote to keep. Anyhow, my apologies for upsetting you, and please know that I'm just trying to improve this place, like you are. Taiwantaffy (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I'm terribly sorry. It's an older article and one which was done before some of the rules regarding inline references and notability were upgraded. It's a bit jarring to see an AfD on something you worked on (however old it may be) and I reacted badly. I was in a lousy mood when I logged on and that's never a good idea. I can't work on it now, but I'll do what I can with it ASAP. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references in other sources:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274205 http://radiocontrol.wikia.com/wiki/UltraFly_Model_Corporation http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/ultrafly-model-pc-9-w-speed-400-park-flyer-arf-32 http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_2328271/anchors_2328321/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#2328321 http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=5YSGyVRzQ2E --Jtle515 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2010 (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.