Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4Frontiers

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, whichever way I interpret things, so keep. -Splash talk 01:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

4Frontiers
6 Google hits, no alexa ranking. Zoe 22:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * strong delete ridiculous pipe-dream masquerading as business opportunity Anetode 22:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT a web directory. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Was written about in Wired! and frontpaged on Slashdot. Valid stub article, revisit this in six months to a year. SchmuckyTheCat 23:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So I can create a website and send out press releases saying I'm going to put a colony on Venus and I get an article? Zoe 04:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but getting a main article from Wired! is a lot more difficult than sending some press releases, that took some credibility somewhere in the organization. Remember, our duty is to describe the world, not judge it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak weak keep this pipe-dream for now, agreeing with Schmucky, and expand with what little information is verifiable. Lots of companies blow a few hundred thousand dollars of suckers' money and disappear; the media accounts so far suggest that this intends to be serious.  Scope is bold and broad and commercial compared to most such proposals.  If the project has legs, it'll get such coverage that it'll be notable long before the first launch of humans or mining robots.  However, that's also a reason to accept deletion, on the grounds that "it can be recreated when it's famouser" and "WP is not a crystal ball" and "WP is not Wikinews".  Barno 00:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether the company's goal is a 'ridiculous pipe-dream' or not, the desire to colonize the solar system is part of our culture and society. The company represents a valid attempt at achieving these goals.  This is a valid stub.  --192.158.61.140 16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd been going to say delete, but it's marginal - I do recognise a couple of the names involved, so I suspect it's a little bit more seriously intended than most. Probably worth merging somewhere, and redirect to that page, but not really encylopedic as is. Shimgray 16:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Most experts consider Mars landing/colony by 2020-2030 quite possible. And any project that is going to eventually succeed is bound to start small. Space Adventures was probably seen as pipe-dream too. Yes, all these projects are high-risk (high-payoff), but that doesn't mean they are bogus. Paranoid 18:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the company thrives, I'd like to know.  If the company crashes and burns, I'd like to know.  No matter what, it will always be at least a footnote in Martian history.  --noösfractal 19:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly Speedy under empty in its current form. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. 84.43.108.201 created a bit of a larger article, 4frontiers. I Wikified it, moved it to 4Frontiers Corporation, but it still could do with some work. Inky 00:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It is irrelevent whether their goals are a pipe dream, impossible, or that they are goals which would make them famous (if their efforts would in the future be considered important). A company's intent to some day make a settlement on mars does not make an article about that company encyclopedic, any more than a person stating they would like to travel to mars makes a biography about that person encyclopedic. Is the company a well-recognized or popular name?.   If the company is not otherwise notable, it shouldn't have an article, just because of its intent, not until the company's effort or attempt has become noted, or enough of their efforts, their plans, method, etc has been publicized so that their very efforts have become a well-known or important subject: notable failures are encyclopedic, but 4Frontiers has neither succeeded nor failed.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we seem to just be speculating about future importance of a subject, which does not merit an article. --Mysidia (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect &rarr; 4Frontiers Corporation --Mysidia (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.