This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 25lucky (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 4 November 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:50, 4 November 2024 by 25lucky (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Albedo Space
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Albedo Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable; New York Times article (I read it completely) only provides general information (likely from the website or press-release, e.g.a "The company’s website makes no mention of imaging people, or the privacy issues. Even so, reconnaissance experts say regulators should wake up before its spacecraft start taking their first close-ups"). Also I found other sources to be not SIGCOV Qivatari (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Google News suggest no WP:SIGCOV and the NYT article seems like a passing mention Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Very week keep actually. The NYT article meets WP:ORGCRIT. It has editorial oversight so unless OP is able to show the publication failed to do so it can be used towards notability. By weak, I mean the other reference I found was this in TechCrunch. Parts of the article are obviously supplied by the company but there does appear to be enough independent coverage within to meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Will solidify my opinion after a full source review, but after an abbreviated one I am currently inclined to redirect to Very low Earth orbit. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm going to go with redirect for this one, just seems too soon for now. I'm not entirely sold on the NYT article, but I think I would go for a keep if we had 3 sources of equal quality (though I'd prefer it if at least one of them was better of course). Even with how much of it is made of quotes, the parts of it that don't (and are actually about the company) clear my threshold, if barely. Unfortunately, we don't have three, and the TechCrunch doesn't quite do it for me, and nor do any of the news articles that cite the NYT article offer enough additional content to swing things. As a plus, that NYT article should be suitable as a source for a bit of content to use in Very low Earth orbit which I'm recommending as the target as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Very low Earth orbit. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The NYT article talks "in general" about the impact of sophisticated cameras in the sky and provides no in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company (which wasn't provided by the company and/or their founders). HighKing 14:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, this USA satellite company doesn't not meet GNG/WP:NCORP which requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why redirect to Very lo Earth orbit though? Could we not direct it to NASA? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, this USA satellite company doesn't not meet GNG/WP:NCORP which requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nasa is a different and unrelated organization. The company develops "very low earth orbit" satellites so if the article is going to be redirected, it makes sense to redirect there. Equally valid to just delete the article if the redirect doesn't make sense and an alternative doesn't exist... HighKing 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- 'Weak keep maybe it's not a clear meeting of the NCORP but it may has additional sources too 25lucky (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)