Talk:Trek Aerospace

Perhaps same, perhaps related, or perhaps successor organisation?
It would have been better if I had put this in this talk page from the start, rather than in the edit summary and hidden comments in the article. My bad. In its current form, were it within my power, I'd delete the article, per the WP:GNG heads of argument "Significant coverage", "Independent of the subject", amongst other reasons, as well as perhaps WP:SOAP, specifically "Advertising" ('... articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable...'

Trek Aerospace, and The Aerospace Corporation look very similar to me. My guess is that they may practically and/or legally any or all of - the same corporate entity; - parts of the same business group, - successor entity or entities of the same or related enterprises. Article may well be a candidate for redirection or merging. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Of course, I could be completely wrong. Like other very rare phenomena, it has been known to happen.)


 * I see no indication of a relation between Trek Aerospace and The Aerospace Corporation beyond a common interest in defense-oriented aeronautics research. Trek seems to be involved in personal flight (and in watercraft), while TAC was involved in 1960s ballistic missile research and nowadays deals in defense (and espionage?) satellites. To the best of what I could ascertain, Trek had 10 employees in 2003 (of which 6 were fired), while TAC's Wikipedia article gives the number of employees as ~3000. I found no indication of Trek having a pre-1996 history, while TAC is much older. TAC still exists, so Trek certainly is not the same and not a successor.
 * On the other hand, Trek Aerospace may manage to pass WP:CORP on its own; their 2003 crisis made quite some headlines. If you really think the article should be deleted, the most efficient way would be to blank the page and add a tag as author and only major contributor. Huon (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I wasn't just wrong, I was very, very wrong. ;-P --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)