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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx (spacecraft)

[edit]

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

The article appears to be a puff piece for a project. All sources look to be either from the company or clearly sourced from press releases. A close reading of the sources shows that despite initial passenger-carrying spaceflights promised since 2008, the actual vehicle does not exist beyond a few parts, such as a photograph of a nosewheel. My concern is that Wikipedia is being used as a board to carry multiple company links to increase their visibility. --Pete (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nom is involved in an dispute with User:N2e on the article, nomination appears to be WP:POINTy. --W. D. Graham 16:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (comment) Actually, I went to WP:RSN to get more eyes on the article and was directed (via WP:NOTABILITY) towards listing it for deletion by Blueboar here. Just following up on good advice, as I have on yours, WDG. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A basic Google search throws up plenty of other sources, and your post at RSN was hardly a fair and neutral assessment of the situation. Instead of trying to enforce your views like this, please try to participate in the discussion which N2e started on the talk page. --W. D. Graham 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me? Who started that discussion? Me. Google throws up plenty of hits, sure, but they all go back to XCOR and press releases. Top of the list is our article, which is basically a collection of XCOR links and press releases. As I've noted several times now, notably in the RS/N discussion you take exception to. That is my position, and if you have a contrary view, please point out the links which aren't from XCOR or one step removed. Be fair. --Pete (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - My mistake, I didn't see the first line. But that is still the right place for this discussion to be taking place, not here. --W. D. Graham 16:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Following good advice, as noted. Here we are, let's see how it goes. Wikiprocess in action! --Pete (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "One step removed" is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was WP:BEFORE followed? [1], [2] seem to establish WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion has been ongoing since 20 September. Thanks for the two article links, but again they are no more than regurgitated company publicity. We don't seem to have anything that stems from an outside source. There are some pictures of a plastic mock-up being displayed at trade shows, but we can't really have an article about a spacecraft that's only a plastic kit, can we? --Pete (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - USA Today/AP does not blindly reprint company PR. NASASpaceFlight has an independent editorial team. And yes, we can really have an article about a spacecraft that's only a plastic kit if enough sources cover it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, yes we can. Things need not exist in order to be notable and have articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's exciting, space tourism, history in the making. NASA is now a partner. News of it's construction and test flights has reached 6 continents. It easily passes WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 21:15 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep and a jumbo-sized ((trout)) for Pete. Coverage in third-party reliable sources is blatant and in the article: Popular Mechanics, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Air & Space/Smithsonian, SPACE.com, The Wall Street Journal, and MSNBC are all third-party reliable sources that are in the article currently. Their sources are irrelvant; the bottom line is that there is plenty of coverage in RS to establish notability, and that the apparent WP:FORUMSHOPPING in an attempt to get this article deleted is disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A simple Google search reveals literally dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources about this article's topic. Here's just a small sampling:

List of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability
Space.com - Lynx Space Plane Taking Off: Q&A with XCOR Aerospace CEO Jeff Greason Popular Mechanics - XCOR Lynx: Don't Sleep on the Space Corvette Aviation Week - Rocket Test Paves Way For XCOR Lynx Flights Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine - The Lynx’s Leap Popular Mechanics XCOR Unveils Suborbital Space Vehicle The Planetary Society - Live at the Space Tech Expo with Bill Nye, Xcor and Zero-G BBC News - Rocket planes seek market share Engadget - XCOR's Lynx aims to enter space tourism business in 2010 New Scientist - Rocket company offers $95,000 trips to space Yahoo News - XCOR Aerospace Announces Midland, Texas, R&D Headquarters CNET - Lynx Fox News - New rocket plane to begin space tourist launches in 2014 Wired - You'd Look Sweet Upon the Seat of a Spaceship Built for Two New York Times - Space Tourism May Mean One Giant Leap for Researchers Los Angeles Times - Planetfest: Lynx vehicle offers a $95,000 trip to space Wall Street Journal - Economy Fare ( $100,000) Lifts Space-Tourism Race USA Today - Company seeks to capitalize on space tourism market The Globe and Mail - Bargain blast-off: Space tourism opens up Christian Science Monitor - Space tourism is ready for takeoff The Sydney Morning Herald - Private plane into space unveiled

List of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - as above, lots of references, not sure why this was ever put up for afd? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep–there are a large number of reliable sources on this vehicle that indicate strong notability. N2e (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems like it's well sourced, even if it were to end up failing it would be notable. --Dramamoose (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The rationale for deleting this article simply goes against WP:DEL-REASON and simply shouldn't be here. This is an article content dispute that spilled over into the AfD simply to spite some of those other participating editors. This is a notable topic, plenty of reliable sources, and issues of point of view need to be resolved within the article talk pages. Ditto with complaints about source quality which merely needs somebody to bring in perhaps some additional quality sources to back up their edits, including the nominator. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:06, 18 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.