Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Space Systems


 * 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. The "keep" opinions are broadly based on "there must be sources out there". However, this is Wikipedia, not the X-Files: per WP:BURDEN, the sources need to be named and identified by those wanting to keep an article, or the article is deleted.  Sandstein  06:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Millennium Space Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP. No independent third-party sources in the article and the only relevant search hits I could find were press releases. Prod contested by author. shoy (reactions) 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article might be possible, but this is a pure press release.  DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and improve. This is a genuine company with at least one real product and some talked-about follow-ons. Googling "Millennium Space Systems" gives over 8,000 hits - there must be plenty of RS out there. But I agree it does need a severe pruning. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some pruning now done, also added refimprove template. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has encyclopedic value as Millennium Space Systems is an established company and has proved relevant to the defense industry. The Google search and substantial amount of hits that come up (mentioned above) combined with its appearance on at least one government website supports this. Improvements are being made in terms of content & page setup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaw22 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the coverage I see is mostly PR material, which does not amount to "significant coverage" to satisfy GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Name me one US company whose Internet coverage is not "mostly PR material" or other press woo. Name me another company anywhere that has put spacecraft into orbit but still does not satisfy GNG - isn't that a contradiction in terms? By Jan 2015 MSS had won over 7.7 million dollar's worth of Gov't contracts. This comes from a an academic University web site. MSS has a name for Reaction wheels,. OK MSS is not a pretty-pretty headliner like Virgin Galactic or XCOR, but it is a solid and steady supplier to US space programs both civil and military. How can you possibly maintain it fails GNG? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The sources offered above are NASA press release and trade news coverage. This does not meet CORPDEPTH, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2016 (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.