Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTA UAV

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TTA UAV

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

Author has created multiple articles about distinct products which are probably not notable as stand-alone articles. A common article for all of the might work.

(does anyone know how to simultaneously nominate multiple article Zero Tech UAV, CAS UAV, ZIA UAV, MCC UAVs, Z-Fly UAV, XMU UAV etc. for deletion?) SPat ^talk 21:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, if any third-party sources are available, as this alrady appears to be a group list for a variety of types that are insufficiently notable for their own articles, but, as a group, are article-worthy. The others should be nominated seperately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a common article, of sorts: List of unmanned aerial vehicles of the People's Republic of China, which links to scores of such articles. The present article is probably better than most on that list. There are challenges of notability for many items on this list, some more than this. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion and consider merging others listed into list article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2013 (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.