Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Space Elevator Consortium


 * 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 to Space Elevator. There's no clear consensus here for any specific action, but looking at it from the other direction, if there is consensus for anything, it's for "do not delete".

From a headcount point of view, there's support for either keep or merge, but (with the exception of DGG, who makes a reasonable point), all of the keep supporters are essentially saying WP:ILIKEIT, and the references produced don't appear to meet our guidelines. Even the proposer suggested that a merge might be the right thing, and one of the remaining keeps is just what he said, where the referent has in turn changed their opinion from keep to merge. So, it seems the consensus, such as it is, is for merge.

But that gets us down to what the merge target should be. Both Space Elevator and Space elevator competitions were mentioned. I don't see any strong argument favoring one over the other, so I'll just leave it up to whoever completes the merge to use their best judgement (which might be a combination of the two). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

International Space Elevator Consortium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Tagged for notability a while ago, but tag was removed without providing evidence. A search turns up our article Space elevator competitions so probably merge into that. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:ORG due to the following reliable sources: Pacific Standard CNN CNBC Space.com Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC) I have changed my mind and now think that a merge as proposed by RockMagnetist would be better, the coverage of this organization does not appear to meet ORGDEPTH. Everymorning (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as Everymorning says. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 21:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I improved the article after attending the 2015 conference in Seattle at the Museum of Flight. I was impressed by the technical sophistication of the material presented there (My qualifications are that I'm an inventor with over 30 patents granted and a Principal Engineer in a very large and well-know software organization). I met people who had traveled from Japan and Europe to attend, people who currently have positions in reputable and well-known space agencies, and notable inventors and authors.
 * Isecscribe (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with space elevator. None of the sources meet the depth of coverage criterion for WP:ORG. For example, several sources simply include the Consortium as part of a list. Putting together the four sources mentioned by, all we can learn about the Consortium is that it has an annual meeting and its president is Peter Swain. The articles mainly cover the subject of space elevators, so why not merge? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your argument convincing and so have struck out my previous !vote. Everymorning (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely Keep. 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) 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The thing I forgot to mention in my vote was that I searched diligently for better sources and couldn't find any (and clearly did some searching as well). Anyone claiming that the subject is notable should produce the sources. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! It's just a stub article, but it has twelve(!) sources.  Some of them support other stated facts and don't add to the showing of notability, but a bunch of them do support  notability.  You should have searched on the page itself.  Your own failures and inabilities are not a reflection on the notability of any subject. :-) Skyway (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (leaning toward keep) - The existing refs are hopeless - all blogs, self published, or infotainment. In its current state it fails to demonstrate notability through reliable secondary sources. That said, a google news search turns up plenty of hits, several of which seem fairly decent. While none of them appear to be explicitly about ISEC, many quote extensively from ISEC, and some have done interviews with representatives of ISEC (this one from CNBC is fairly good]. This suggests ISEC is considered an authority on space elevator construction/economics. Does that make ISEC notable? As a moderate WP:inclusionist, I'm inclined to say yes. Definitely needs to be tagged with refimprove though.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your search is the same one we have all done, and some of the sources (including the CNBC one) have already been discussed. Most of them would be useful sources for Space elevator, but only use the head of the International Space Elevator Consortium as a source for a quote - one of the examples of trivial coverage that are explicitly mentioned in WP:ORGDEPTH. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , apologies, I failed to check Everymorning's struck-out refs before doing my own search. WP:ORGDEPTH defines trivial mentions as, for example, a list of meeting times or sporting results, or (relevantly for this discussion) simply identifying a quoted person as belonging to the organisation. Several of these sources (CNBC, Space.com, possibly CNN) are more than mere mentioning, and describe what the ISEC is and what it does. Not much more, I'll grant, but it counts as a non-trivial mention, which gets it over the line of WP:GNG. ORGDEPTH defers to GNG.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I still have my doubts. For example, the relevant text in the CNBC article says
 * "That's the goal of the International Space Elevator Consortium, a group of scientists, aerospace engineers and other big thinkers devoted to the development of "inexpensive, safe, routine and efficient access to space." They believe the answer lies in suspending a very long—and very strong—elevator cable from the surface of the Earth to a point thousands of miles in space."


 * Which is just a long-winded way of saying that the International Space Elevator Consortium is devoted to developing a space elevator. This CNN article has just a bare mention - is there another one? However, there is good coverage of some of their conferences, like this Space.com article. Maybe that's enough. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable by definition: few if any of the citations are to conventionally defined reliable sources. Basically, the argument is that it is notable because they say that it is notable. 77.99.195.233 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the definition. Saying "it's notable" isn't at all the same as saying "the article adequately demonstrates the subject's notability".  All notable subjects are notable in-and-of-themselves, and saying "it's notable" is never intended to be the proof, it's simply talking about the subject's notability.  Again, it's the subject that must be notable.  It's the article that must (eventually) give evidence of notability.  But if an article doesn't do that yet, it doesn't at all mean the subject isn't notable "by definition".  If a subject is notable for continued inclusion, it's just a matter of whether the article's included references are strong enough for the article to demonstrate the subject's notability (as our refs indeed are).  In fact, an article doesn't even need to give evidence of the subject's notability, there only needs to be the expectation that strong enough supporting refs can be found!  Skyway (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have just undone a NACD. Please can any no-admins leave this to an admin to close. I have relisted because the close is clearly contentious and it would be good to get a better consensus.This looks like a merge so far but further discussion of the nature and depth of sourcing against GNG would make the outcome more explicit. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Skyway, it would be more helpful if could link to specific sources that you feel establish the verifiable notability of the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Skyway, the refs currently in the article are NOT good enough. The general notability guideline requires more than blogs, self published sources and trivial mentions. Most editors here have attempted to find better, reliable refs. Some have been found which lend support to notability, but it remains a borderline case. Your argument boils down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES - I tend to agree in this case, but it is not my or anyone else's job to track down better sources for interested editors. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Yes. It is a judgement call as to whether an article's current sources are adequate to demonstrate a subject's notability.  I can give you that.  Although, the requirement for includability is that the subject be notable, not that its article demonstrate it.  I only offer the idea (that the current sources are adequate) as an extra-added-bonus on top of the already good notability of the subject, which is the only actual requirement.  It does certainly help if some sources in an article are good for demonstrating notability.  I happen to think they do that well.  Even if they don't however, it's quite permissible to allow for better sources to be found and added in due course.  Skyway (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * you are relatively new to deletion debates, and you need to understand how they work. It's true that the article does not have to demonstrate notability, but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, and in an AfD you need to demonstrate that those sources exist. Your arguments for notability are based on your understanding of the importance of the organization, and you may be right; but in this forum you need to prove it with sources. And those sources need to be reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage (please read Identifying reliable sources carefully). A few of us have tried to find those sources and have not succeeded. So unless you can get more specific and show us what sources establish reliability and how, your arguments will carry no weight with the closing admin. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah? What "closing admin"?  This is just an excuse for you to go round-and-around.  There's no upswell to delete at all.  This effort had to be "relisted" twice to get anyone else to care, and even then few care, and nobody was recruited the second time.  The subject has always been plenty notable enough, and even though it's not strictly necessary, the article has quite a few good independent notability-demonstrating sources that have been listed for some time.  Even more have been mentioned on this page.  Skyway (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * YH, you may be overstating our resistance to blogs as a source. "Blog" is a publishing format; that it is used most frequently for self-published material does not bar us from including other blogs. We freely accept blogs from major news sources. So if you're applying the concern to space.com, we need to look at whether it's self-published (it's not), whether it has editorial oversight (I wasn't able to quickly find it, but knowing the publisher, probably) and whether it's a source of significance (quite possibly.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like a close call to me. If it is accepted as a reliable source, does an article about a conference hosted by ISEC count as an article about ISEC itself or about the ideas that were discussed in the conference? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just one example of news organizations relying on ISEC. I added the numerous examples of that mentioned here (in the AfD) to the article. Skyway (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that it's not necessary to answer this question if the article is merged. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging with Space Elevator would be off-topic for that article. Skyway (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional References Supporting Notability: This is a list that had added to the article. Since the goal of the article is to convey information about the subject and not to defend the article, and since sources used to establish notability, I am moving the list here, so that they may be considered in this discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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/
 * Having now looked at these sources: they are passing mentions (single sentences in lineshapespace, bigthink, three sentences at CNBC, two sentences at CNN just citing them as a source for information, and actually zero sentences for the group in The Watcher, although the conference gets a one-sentence mention), affiliated organizations (indeed, the nss source is an announcement of the affiliation)), and the space.com piece - a piece covering the conference written by someone who manages not to mention that he was the keynote speaker at that conference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Organizations interested in a subject should not in general be merged with the subject, unless they are essentially the only one interested, and the project described by the subject is essentially a project by the organization. It seems   that the interest in Space elevators is considerably broader than just this one society, so the article should be kept, separately.  DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)`
 * Are you quoting a policy or guideline? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am giving my opinion about what is the normal practice at AfD on many topics over many years,. To the extent it's consistent., it has the practical effect of a guideline.   DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course if the organization is not notable, that means it should be deleted. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge what's relevant to Space Elevator and Space Elevator competitions which is what they seem to be most known for. I was actually torn on this one, similar to ?NatGertler? above, I found a lot of passing mentions but then they are used as the source of expertise, hold the conference etc so they seemed to be noteworthy if not WP:Notable. Looking at WP:ORG and the depth of coverage section, these mentions fall squarely within un-notable groups. SPACKlick (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As stated above, the group's efforts have been covered in reliable sources such as CNBC (here's the link again) and others (one I don't think that's yet been mentioned above is International Business Times, here). It's not just like they're mentioned in passing within only once sentence either. This article should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned in just two sentences in the International Business Times source, both just to describe them as a source for a given piece of information; they are mentioned in three sentences in the CNBC source, one of which is just to identify a person being quoted. So no, those sources don't have depth of information about the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the content of the CNBC source was mentioned above and its coverage was discussed above in detail. If you are going to claim that the source provides adequate coverage, it would be more useful if you said what was wrong with that analysis. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's rather pointless to hound every single person that posts in a deletion discussion to whom you happen to disagree with, nor is it constructive to make personal attacks against them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am questioning your reasoning, not "hounding" you or making personal attacks. I just see a lack of engagement in this discussion - people talking past each other instead of trying to clearly define what constitutes "substantial coverage". I would rather be proved wrong than ignored. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - weak because I keep thinking that the source is going to be found. It all seems to qualify as passing mentions, except for the space.com source, which I thought was going to be the thing that saved this... until I realized that it was not an unaffiliated source, but rather an article by the conference's keynote speaker. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - The article fails WP:N because it has no independent, third party sources. Quality over quantity! 12 references that are all primary source/blogs are not reliable. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2015 (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.