Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc


 * 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 merge and redirect to Pamela Rai Menges. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 12:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Aerospace Research Systems, Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As far as I can tell, nothing beyond trivial mentions in Google news and Google books results. Note: I have no knowledge on aerospace engineering so I don't know the significance of anything covered in the article. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG, just nothing out there. Retswerb (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I found one article on Google Scholar and a one-sentence mention on a NASA memo from 2005. Simply doesn't seem notable. - Pax   Verbum  05:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As above - Insuffecient RS - fails WP:GNGDeathlibrarian (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the claims on their web home page are true then would probably meet RS notability, and I do give a little more weight to innovative engineering. However this could be sales hype .... the truth is likely somewhere in-between.  I'm not likely to investigate this at the moment, but might ask a draftification.  A problem is article is certainly not fit for mainspace as it stands unless RS are supporting the claims..11:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete no significant news coverage exists. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deletion: This articlespace has no reliable references. It should have been tagged for speedy deletion. If no reliable, independent sources are found on the web, it should be marked for deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The two references added do not demonstrate it meets WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite your edits, the article is still nominated for deletion and with the current votes, is likely to be deleted. Do the recent edits influence your view on notability of the subject? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My views are unchanged, . Adding the infobox and the information on the CEO (who may not be notable herself, but I haven't looked that deeply yet) are immaterial. The 90 day extension request in the lawsuit does not establish notability, nor does the source from the University of Cinncinati, which focuses mainly on the CEO and only mentions the company in passing. The other two references are interviews with the CEO herself, which do not strike me as reliable secondary sources. Sorry, I just don't think it's there. - Pax  Verbum  00:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that it meets WP:GNG. The other internal articlespace linked has been nominated for deletion: Pamela Rai Menges. Multi7001 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * CommentI just did a quick google search, really not much coming up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, or Merge to Pamela Rai Menges. I actually believe there's just about enough here for a keep, but in the process of fettling the article in became obvious Pamela Rai Menges was a likely spin off article, and indeed problably the more interesting article as most things here can be said there.  I have created that article, somewhat in a rush to provide a deletion alternative for this one, but it was immediately place under attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges.  Because of my nature I am likely to become uncivil and outburst and get blocked and am therefore intendent to take a 24 hour wikibreak minimum from English Wikipedia for Djm-leighpark; which will be close to the first determination point for this AfD.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pamela Rai Menges (nominator). There seems to be some sources discussing Menges; given the subject matter (engineering research and development, which tends to be notable), this should be enough for that article. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the articlespace of Pamela Rai Menges has been marked for deletion because of indications that it may not meet WP:BIO or have established sufficient notability. Feel free to join the discussion. Multi7001 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2021 (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.