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. v/r - TP 03:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc[edit]

Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This company is probably out of business and it never accomplished anything. This leaves it with no notability. A similar AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AERA Corporation (2nd nomination) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notability is not temporary. Any aerospacecraft manufacturer, defunct or otherwise, is notable, regardless of whether or not they "accomplished anything". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Any is notable? That's crazy. Wikipedia is not a spam repository. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the assertion "Any aerospacecraft manufacturer, defunct or otherwise, is notable, regardless" simply has to be wrong. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could have put that better. What I meant was that if they were ever notable, they are forever notable. WP:NTEMP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepredirect to AERA Corporation There is no policy that allows for deletion of notable companies that have failed. This company received sufficient press coverage to be considered notable, see msnbc.msn.com www.flightglobal.com and space.com. Monty₈₄₅ 17:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=u2R&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=xZrjToK_PMeW8gOMnu3qAw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CA8Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8d847c278686ce25&biw=1440&bih=728 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=vN7&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company%2C+inc&pbx=1&oq=Sprague+Astronautics+Company%2C+inc&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4767l5647l5l6037l3l3l0l0l0l0l687l1096l4-1.1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8d847c278686ce25&biw=1440&bih=728 Not finding any notable coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you address how the links I provided in my comment fail to establish notability? Monty₈₄₅ 17:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 and 3 are talking about AERA Corporation Seems to be a virtual copy of much of this material, both pages may be promotonal), neither make any mention of Sprague Astronautics Company. One source has a metion, but one source does not establish notability, especialy when its only a couple of lines. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, they are the same company with different names. Even their websites have the same error message with different logos... the articles have verbatim text at points, I will change my position to redirect. Monty₈₄₅ 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an assumption, and synthasis, is there any srouce that says these are one and the same company? Besides if its notable why is it not operatiing under one name? This looks like a non notable comnapany crrating multiple names and pages to increase the publicity it recives. There is no notable coverage for this version of AREA (assuming they are the same, and the error message is not the saem)) thus it should be deleted, and any worthwhile material moved to the AREA page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“Our site is in process of being updated and moved to a new server farm Please check back in a few days Thank you“ Sprague “Our site is temporarily down while a transfer to a new server is in progress...please check back soon!“ AREA.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The messages are substantively the same, though not verbatim... both are down while they are moved to a new server, both companies have a rocket named Altaris, which will seat 6 passengers and a pilot for a total of 7, and both will land horizontally... I don't think its unacceptable synthesis to conclude they are the same company. Monty₈₄₅ 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many companies websites are down, they will all carry a very similar message, The Altaris design could have been sold, or a wholey new company set up with new investors and board. Its not sysnthasis to assume they are using the same spacecraft design, it is to assume they are ther same company.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This company was probably never notable in the first place. Anyone who said it was 3 years ago was violating the Wiki is not a Crystal Ball rule. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this does seem to be a perfect example of crystal balling, it must have page becasue it will be notable. It clearly is not (and cannot have been).Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar (talk · contribs) said a great thing about this on a discussion of whether notability is temporary: I have said this before, but it is worth saying again... I think we should distinguish between lasting notability and short term notoriety. Although similar and easily confused, the two concepts are not quite the same. This company achieved notoriety, but never achieved notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the realative lack of sources that are definatly about this company I am not sure it can be said that even achived that.Slatersteven (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most of the arguments against deletion seem to revolve around the assumption that the company was notable before it folded. It was not. They were just one of many companies which were founded, claimed that they were going to get into the commercial spaceflight industry in a few years' time, got absolutely nowhere, and then folded. As far as I know they have never produced any hardware or achieved anything, they certainly haven't launched anything. If it is notable simply to claim an intent to conduct space missions, regardless of sincerity or likelihood of achieving anything, let alone success, then I could register a company tomorrow under such a claim, liquidate it the next day after realising that I didn't have the resources, however it would still be notable under these criteria. I would suggest that we delete these articles, and then hold a discussion at the relevant WikiProject on establishing some kind of criteria that such companies should meet before we create articles on them - actually producing some hardware, for example. --GW… 09:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It appears never to have actually developed nor much less operated as announced. It's not necessarily a hoax, but it could be. It can be asserted with certainty that there's been no coverage of this company's actions since its announcement (i.e. the part we can verify). It can be shortened and merged into Space Tourism. patsw (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Space Tourism? Under which section? The article currently lists private efforts that are not defunct. Do we really want to pollute that article with failures that never went anywhere? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The discussion at the time of the announcement is sufficient sourcing. that the project is apparently dead is irrelevant, it was notable even as a projected enterprise. . DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. The lack of any real accomplishments makes this company not even a footnote in its industry. If there are any references, it only proves that they existed for a while, that's all. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:49, 18 December 2011 (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.