Deletion of WingtraOne

Comment: Comment regarding notability: one, while VTOL aircrafts e.g. Harrier Jump Jet have been experimented with and developed in the past, it has taken some time for this technology to translate to the realm of Unmanned aerial vehicle|drones. Currently, professional drones either follow Fixed-wing aircraft design or Rotorcraft designs. Reason behind drafting this article was to throw some light on one of the few mature drone technologies that emulate VTOL design (i.e. hybrid of Fixed-wing aircraft and Rotorcraft design). That WingtraOne is notable in this regard can be verified with a simple search for "VTOL drones for surveying" etc. Secondly, some of the sources cited such as this one https://www.nzz.ch/nzzas/nzz-am-sonntag/jungfirma-wingtra-zuercher-drohnen-projekt-hebt-ab-ld.7316 from Neue Zürcher Zeitung and https://www.startwerk.ch/2016/12/21/wingtra-mithilfe-von-drohnen-weniger-ertrags-ausfaelle/ (edit: another independent source: https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/eco/bvg-geschaeft-profi-drohnen-nachfolge-in-chinas-firmen and its written summary https://www.srf.ch/radio-srf-3/digital/drohnenland-schweiz-zu-gast-an-der-cebit) are reputable, independent sources and not press releases, but perhaps not checked so far because of language/regional reasons. As the technology is based in Switzerland, there are reputable sources like these to be found in German (and  does allow for sources other than English). Would also point to the editorial integrity of sources such as this one: https://www.expouav.com/news/latest/wingtra-leverages-benefits-multirotor-fixed-wing-drones/ and this one: http://gpsworld.com/launchpad-the-latest-in-gnss-survey-and-uav-products/. For the technology itself, there are references to research papers published in IEEE, e.g. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7487466/, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7989455/, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7989454/. Would agree that the article can be improved with regards to  and this is also indicated by the Start-Class label as assigned by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:PROMOTIONAL)

Comment: coverage exists in reliable trade publications for drones and GPS - meets . I just added info from CeBIT; most coverage is in either academic or industry sources, with an absence of subjective promotional verbiage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: In general, "a specific type of aircraft that has flown" has been considered to be ''prima facie'' evidence of notability; the explosion of mini-/micro-/nano-/itsybitsyteenyweenie-drones has made that a bit wobbly in their situations, though, as radio-controlled aircraft do ''not'' count, in Wikipedia terms, as aircraft - where is the line between "aircraft" and "toy"? That said, once a little elbow grease was applied to some ''very'' simple formatting of the article, suddenly it looks much more like an article and much less like an advertisement. And while the  of references does include a lot of the "not intellectually independent" types that are in vogue at AfD to be called out, I believe there is enough here - perhaps ''just'' enough, but enough nontheless - to establish  compliance. The article does, in fact, need a lot more polish and pruning of the spamosity that is in the aforementioned bombardment, but |AfD is not for cleanup - and, at this point, all that is needed is cleanup, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARDMENT||WP:GNG||WP:NOTCLEANUP)