Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AERA Corporation (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Despite sources provided by Monty, consensus appears to be that this company did nothing notable and achieved nothing notable. Coverage appears WP:ROUTINE for a space tourism company (or rather, what someone would expect any new space tourism startup to receive). v/r - TP 02:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

AERA Corporation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This company appears to be out of business and never seems to have sold any of the space tours it promised. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable private spaceflight company (of which Wikipedia already has too many). --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Legis. Also, should Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc be added to the AfD? (it is probably the same company) -- G W … 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Too late to add another article. I'll nominate is separately. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's now active, at Articles for deletion/Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No notability demonstrated in any source.  N2e (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep There is clear notability for at least one of the articles. Combined AERA Corporation and Sprague Astronautics Company have received plenty of press coverage to pass the notability threshold, even if the references aren't in the article. The suggested search from the template provides few results because in press coverage the company is rarely refered to as AERA Corporation, instead it is usually just called AERA, AERA Corp, or some other variation. Coverage:      and referring to the other company name, .  Monty  845  18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This was 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. -- G W … 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Whilst all the above is ture, but it has recived some press coverage, just enough I think to pass notability. But its all very weak stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete: Per the nom, and the fact that they aren't talked about today.-- Navy Blue84  15:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage existed. All arguments of the type that "it isn;t talked about today" or that its a dead project are irrelevant altogether--if it was notable at the time of announcement as a projected development it is notable for encyclopedic purposes forever. the correct policy is NOT DIRECTORY--we cover not just what is currently active, the way a business directory would cover active businesses. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it's pretty damn easy to get yourself on Wikipedia. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  15:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That works both ways, I'd say by that definition this was never notable. -- G W … 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. The flurry of references only proved that they were active for a while. But the lack of any real accomplishments makes this company not even a footnote in its industry. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the sources provided demonstrate notability. They only demonstrate that this company was good at getting itself in the news. It's pure vaporware and even its failure isn't notable. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  17:13, 18 December 2011 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.