Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrazyFlie

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyFlie

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have been unable to find any suitable sources. For example, the first couple of pages of results from a Google search for "CrazyFlie" contained several pages on the web site of the company producing CrazyFlie, web pages selling CrazyFlie, YouTube, several github pages, Twitter, instructions on using CrazyFlie, etc etc, but I found not a single case of substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. Trying adding other words in the search term along with "CrazyFlie" made no difference. The article was proposed for deletion, with lack of independent sources given as part of the reason. The creator of the article then removed the deletion proposal, and added a number of references, but they are merely reports on projects which have used CrazyFlie; while they all mention CrazyFlie in the course of describing the projects, none of them actually gives substantial coverage of CrazyFlie itself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JamesBWatson, I created the page for Crazyflie this morning. I tried to add a few more sources to save it from deletion last time. But it seems it has been marked for deletion again. I am a grad student and this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia. I can see from the talk page that the deletion has been requested due to lack of independent sources. I would like to know what sort of sources I could get in order to improve the article. Because you are right when you say that googling Crazyflie only gives company links and github projects. Sadly it is a very small enterprise made by students like me. So finding myriad sources for it can be tough. Mostly people use it for projects and such. My motivation to create a page ironically, was because when I started working on the project and decided to Google Crazyflie, I didn't find any Wikipedia page for it and I wanted to add one,so that students like me , who want to work on Crazyflie have some basic information to start with. I have also not done this due to any collaboration with the company or to advertise about them. Infact I even mentioned a few problems it has, to be as unbiased as I could. I really want to save the page. So any help or insight will be highly appreciated. Thank you.Jayneeshw (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneesh (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Jayneesh: (aka Jayneeshw) I fully understand what you are saying, and I do sympathise with you, as I have explained at greater length on your talk page. However, I'm afraid that what you are saying is actually confirmation that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for an article. A "very small enterprise made by students" for which finding sources is "tough" pretty certainly won't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I waded through the refs somehow expecting to find a notability gem that had been overlooked. I was out of luck. This gives all the appearance of a student business project. If so it is way too soon to be making an article here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting thingie, but the independent coverage isn't there. It's too soon for a Wikipedia article.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:14, 4 September 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.