Talk:International Space Elevator Consortium

Notable.
I removed the "notability" tag for reasons given in the edit summary. ISEC is the keeper of modern-day (2008-present) space elevator concepts and actively moves them forward. ISEC is indeed the go-to place for space elevators. Article is a stub, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. There's lots more unchallenged stuff on wikipedia that's way less notable.

Article also needs to be categorized as a "stub", but I don't know how to do that.

100.0.124.125 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I attended the organization's 2015 conference in Seattle and was quite impressed with the depth of technical material presented. Conference attendees and presenters included scientists and engineers from as far away as Japan and Europe, as well as people who currently hold respectable positions within well-known space agencies, and inventors who have made notable contributions in the field such as Keith Lofstrom (The Launch Loop).Isecscribe (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely Notable. I just noticed the attempt to delete for notability over at Articles_for_deletion/International_Space_Elevator_Consortium It's Ridiculous. The assertions of non-notability are from major ignorance, not only of the notability of ISEC, but worse, of the meaning of "notability". Notability is a requirement for the subject. It's not a measure of how well an article conveys that notability. When an article on a notable subject doesn't convey that notability well, the fix is to improve it so the notability is conveyed better. ISEC is absolutely notable. They are the center of the space elevator world. They make it all happen. In the modern era (post Edwards, post X-Prize), they are the keepers of the very definition of what a space elevator is. They're actively engaged in improving all aspects of design. They coordinate efforts of people all around the globe. No-way, no-how should ISEC be deleted for notability. Neither should it be merged, because ISEC is a separate and separately notable subject. Skyway (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There once was a "notability tag" requesting more sources about the topic. That was the proper way to go about it, i.e. the subject is notable, so improve the demonstration of that notability. The tag was removed because in the mind of the remover it had sufficient cited sources. It's a judgement call as to whether that was optimistic, but even more sources have been added since then, so now even a "notability tag" is clearly not justified, let alone deletion. Skyway (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the notability tag was removed not because this article had sufficient references (and there had been no references added between when I put on that tag and when the IP user removed it), but per the edit summary removing the article, ISEC references made the "backbone" of another article, and (as reflected in the edit summary and in the removers notice on the page) an "it is so notable!" argument. That later sort of argument, also reflected in your statement, runs into a problem of what "notability" actually means in Wikipedia terms - which on a practical level boils down not to "worthy of note" but to "already noted". As such, you may want to focus your arguments (here, but more importantly on the deletion page) on either showing new sources not already covered, or showing how the existing sources meet the requirements of our guidelines of depth of coverage about organizations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC
\Requesting comments from community after disagreements with AfD closure as 'keep'. samtar(leave me a message) 15:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This RFC seems to be malformed. Are you asking for a review of the AFD closure? Because the AFD seems to be open. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The AfD was re-opened after being closed inappropriately, so discussion should continue there, and this RfC is unnecessary.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Confusing You might want to delete this RFC. Damotclese (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional References Supporting Notability
When I added this list to the article, I knew it was out of place there. Afterward, I thought they would be better on the talk page, so here they are. They've also been copied to the AfD discussion too by someone else. This is an unfinished list. I stopped where I did only because I was getting tired. The search engine was giving me no shortage of paths to follow to find more. I made sure of course to not include anything that looked like publicity for the same event, or that otherwise looked to be not independent from the rest of the list.


 * http://www.space.com/27225-space-elevator-technology.html
 * http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/10/tech/innovation/space-elevator-nanotechnology/
 * http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/ready-for-a-ride-on-a-space-elevator.html
 * http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/08/26/space-elevator-distant-reality/
 * http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/people-are-serious-about-building-a-space-elevator
 * http://blog.nss.org/nss-links-up-with-the-international-space-elevator-consortium/
 * http://lineshapespace.com/carbon-nanotube-applications/

Skyway (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)