Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Spike Company

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 keep. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Spike Company

Golden Spike Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, as speculation and WP:Crystal. Sources don't deal with the company merely the possibility of an announcement that could be to the moon and maybe not Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Every single time I write a new article about a company it gets nominated for deletion. One of these days somebody might actually pay attention and assume good faith just to let me have a chance to actually put in some bloody sources to get the damn thing written! This AfD nomination took a whole 20 minutes from the time I started the stub, and even tried to put notices on the article that it was still under construction. At least this whole AfD discussion will be moot by the time the clock runs out to close this discussion. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So in essence you do agree that you are writing about a speculative event that happens in the future? If you notice a pattern of things being nominated for deletion you do have the option of doing it in user space until it is ready. Of course nothing says you have to but it might save you the frustration. I understand it's frustrating but it is a option and one that I'd reccomend until the event you are thinking will happen does happen...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a press conference that will happen in the future, but there are enough "reliable sources" that at least mention enough details that not only do I consider the business notable and that it certainly deserves a stub of an article. My mentioning that the press conference will happen is that this particular article seems to be very likely to be a hot bed of editing activity in a couple of days.
Sure, I could have "saved myself some frustration" by putting it into my user space. But really, where in Wikipedia guidelines does it say that you must start an article in the user space? If anything, the reason I start articles like this in the mainspace is in part because I feel that articles like this should start in the mainspace, and I think those who push new editors into the AfC process are simply mistaken deletionists. I should also note that every single one of my articles that I have started in this manner have survived the AfD process, often with a rebuke by the closing admin for having wasted everybody's time with the AfD. This is something that simply should not be happening, and these type of premature AfD nominations are one of the reasons why editors quit Wikipedia, and why editors are not coming into this project any more.
I hate defending my edit every time, and I wish that some time people like you would actually learn how to be cooperative rather than try to squash legitimate efforts to write useful information into Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're putting in effort writing the article but if an article is not within policy it should not be there. If it's about a future event without confirmation it's policy not to have it here. Is there a reason why we should be? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A future event without confirmation? WTF? Have you even looked at the sources I put into the article so far? I have three independent reliable sources, plus a couple of blog posts (that I will admit eventually need to go). The press conference is listed on the National Press Club website, which I consider to be as reliable as you can get for something like that shy of doing original research. This article is completely within policy, as is discussing that future press conference in and of itself if I were to be writing an article just about that particular event, which I'm not. This is no different than talking about the 2024 Summer Olympics in terms of perhaps a future event that has extensive press coverage. There are factual pieces of information about this company, even if they are scant and only deserves a stub. That is precisely what an article stub is all about. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will a Secret Private Manned Mission to the Moon Be Announced This Week? (This is a question no?)
  • Private moon mission rumour is glimpse of lunar future" (Rumor is unconfirmed or speculative no?)
  • 4th source appears to be a tweet and hardly a reliable source
  • 5th source is an announcement of a press conference with no details.
  • And your 6th source basically says they exist but they have very little info on the company.

Maybe since it so cut and dry you can explain where I'm wrong. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm asking is that you give me a bloody 24 hours to at least try to write the damn article before you nominate the thing for an AfD in the first place. Besides, did you read the articles or not? Yes, the articles are based upon rumor... but "rumors" that have been sourced by journalists that have inside sources that seem to indicate that the information is reliable. I dare you to name something, with perhaps the exception of the "investors" involved (that is still within Wikipedia guidelines BTW to mention rumors from reliable sources) what in this article is not verifiable and accurate?
Yes, this is something that seems like an April fool's joke if it weren't something serious. If you want to debate sources, take it to the talk page and we can discuss those sources there. I admit there isn't much about the company, but it is apparent that the purpose of the company is to send people to the Moon. I am trying to be careful and not add hype and trying to stick to the basic facts.... sort of why this article is just a stub. Regardless, you keep claiming that this is about a future event. It isn't. This is about a company which plans on having a press conference covering major details about itself in the very near future, and the factual and verifiable information that a press conference will happen has been verified by multiple sources, which also provides confirming information about what is said in the article. Nothing so far is rationale for why this article must be deleted. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hell In A Bucket is giving you good advice. Develop the article in your user space, flesh it out with reliable sources and then introduce it to the live mainspace. Better yet, have an experienced editor review the article before publishing it. If you insist on creating articles on speculative subjects on the fly, you risk having them deleted. It may seem cold, but we all have to play by the same rules. - MrX 02:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Robert Horning's right, there are reliable sources. Yes, some need to be trimmed, but others are just fine. dci | TALK 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the sources are there, and it is a registered company. I say "weak" because this may be another project where somebody has a pipe dream but it never becomes reality. A perfect example is Clive Palmer's proposed Titanic II - well covered, notable, but yet to progress off the drawing board. Blue Riband► 01:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Robert Horning (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert Horning (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert Horning (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Conditional Keep until December 6. Then, if the press does not report on how bowled over they were with the press conference, the list of confirmed investors and detailed plans, then delete the article. Presumably, this Afd will run until at least then, so I may be changing my !vote in a few days. - MrX 03:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply Keep, the article is well-enough supported already to exist as a stub, permanently. And, I'll offer that I feel bad for Robert Horning, being beset by too-quick-on-the-trigger deletion-nominators too often. I get that a lot too. There oughta be some penalty applied to deletion-nominators, some cost imposed. They impose a cost on you and me and others. --doncram 22:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the assumption that Dec 6 announcement bears out what the rumors suggest. WP:TROUT to the creator for rushing to create something on limited and rumored sources that could have waited a few days or be done in user space, but no need to delete this now. Similarly WP:TROUT to the nominator for not giving a few days to develop even if it is CRYSTAL, we're in no deadline to remove material, particularly that which will be in better line within 7 days. (If the company instead had announced they would reveal what they were doing on a date in 2013/2014, then absolutely yes, deletion via CRYSTAL would be appropriate here). --MASEM (t) 22:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to agree, 20 minutes? Really? Why did the nominator not ask the author "Hey, this might be premature, would you mind userfying this until Thursday when we know what is what?" Yes, it is a bit premature, but there's an argument for notability based on pre-existing press coverage (prior to this announcement thing), and that'd be sufficient for a weak keep. Common sense carries the other question - there's about to be a whole lot of press coverage in two days, and we know that to be the case, so deletion prior to that (and prior to the 7 days here) makes little sense. See also WP:TROUT. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally suggest reviewing What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:CRYSTAL it we have a policy it's important to stick to it. I don't really care if it pisses someone off, they broke a policy and could've waited until this plethora of surfaces that you say might be here will be here and then there wouldn't be a issue at all. Since at this point this will be a snow close, I would suggest it be done now with the realization I'll see you at another AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I started this article was that I thought there were sufficient reliable sources from which to put in a few basic facts and to start a stub of an article. There certainly are a few details that are more than just rumors. It is those facts that I put into the article. As for if it could have been moved to my user space.... you didn't ask and instead became confrontational with me instead of assuming good faith. Perhaps this was premature to publish this article, but that is debatable. I certainly don't see this as a clear-cut policy violation. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I've read the policies, thank you - and I've acknowledged that the article was premature. But sending it to AFD solved nothing. We don't know what would have happened if you had talked to the editor before going to AFD, because you didn't. And now, if you want to come back later and attempt another AFD on this article, it'll be twice as hard because there will be a Keep consensus backing it. Had you asked nicely, the editor might have userfied. They might have backed off a bit. As they note, they get a lot of articles put up for deletion, so maybe dodging that process this time around would have been appealing. 5 minutes of discussion would have saved an enormous amount of headache. (And it seems they agree, as per above) See also WP:AGF. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you happened to read my first comments to the person did indeed politely reccomend userspace..."So in essence you do agree that you are writing about a speculative event that happens in the future? If you notice a pattern of things being nominated for deletion you do have the option of doing it in user space until it is ready. Of course nothing says you have to but it might save you the frustration. I understand it's frustrating but it is a option and one that I'd reccomend until the event you are thinking will happen does happen" ...Not sure how I didn't assume good faith, I was just giving you a counter suggestion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of the reasons why I tend to get a whole lot of AfD nominations is in part that I tend to write about what I think are interesting companies, particular for new articles. I'll admit that there is a tendency among people with the New Page Patrol that they have a knee jerk reaction that such articles simply aren't worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Also note that I have a pattern of having those kind of articles accepted and kept when those AfDs happen, so I'm not afraid of them happening... other than to note this is a consistent pattern happening on Wikipedia. I'm tired of fighting these AfDs because they revolve around an assumption of bad faith. I really don't think I did anything wrong here, although I admit that writing up this article may seem to many editors as perhaps a bit early. I would be willing to explain myself as to why I did this too, but I certainly was not given the chance before this AfD was slapped on and I think an AfD is the wrong forum to be debating that issue as well. I also spend more than my fair share of time in non-Wikipedia forums telling people to calm down and let the Wikipedia sausage mill work, particularly when topics get nominated for an AfD. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, endorsing almost completely Masem's comment. My only issue is that also the application of WP:CRYSTAL is misguided. The article is not about an event, it's about a company. The event may be in the future and we don't know if it will happen. The company however exists now, and sources discuss it as an existing entity. There is a difference between the articles Present Notable Company (which is rumoured to do future event X) and Future Event X (which will be done by a company). The second is WP:CRYSTAL, the first is not. --Cyclopiatalk 16:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Conditional Keep until press conference on December 6. There are too many startups to allow all to be included on Wikipedia. Lets see what is announced in the December 6, 2012 press conference to make a decision. A list of qualified investors, venture capital funds, experienced involved entrepreneurs should be disclosed. The company does have a few press mentions over the past few days so it may be Wikipedia worthy. 900mill (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the company exists, there are multiple reliable sources, and the company is notable. While obviously more will be known "in the future", and (it would appear) much more will be after the scheduled press conference on 6 Dec, the company is already notable, and meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion. N2e (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep due to invalid rationaile by the nominator (who also assumed non-notability within 20 minutes of creation). WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to companies. The article is not about an event, it is about the company - which passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep due to significant notability of the company, its mission and its founders. Since this is a private company, a lot of information is not published and it is unlikely that a full list of investors will be published in the near future since this is not a publicly traded company (yet). Nonetheless, the company is reported to have already reserved the SpaceX Falcon Heavy at a cost of $120 million and the moon venture is reported to be budgeted at about 2 billion dollars. Parabolic Arc reports that Warren Buffet, Richard Branson and Guy Laliberte are claimed to be among the investors (we may possibly find out in the coming days and weeks). Whether true or not, such reports should be noted with a neutral point of view, including comments on veracity; it is not Wikipedia's role to censor such reports. Since many reputable media are reporting on this company, Wikipedia should not be seen to be censoring such a major enterprise, that would not make any sense, especially considering why Wikipedia was created:

"In 1962, Charles van Doren, who was later a senior editor at Britannica, said, "The ideal encyclopedia should be radical. It should stop being safe." But if you know the history of Britannica since 1962, it has been anything but radical. It's still very, very safe.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, comes from a very radical idea, and that radical idea is for us to all imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That is what we are doing at Wikipedia.

— Jimmy Wales, ... on the birth of Wikipedia, TED Talks
Ergo, Wikipedia should be radical, it should not be playing safe and sitting on the sidelines while this story unfolds. While some argue about the truth of this story, Wikipedia should respect the statements by numerous highly reputable individuals who have joined Golden Spike. Given that the company founders include several former senior NASA officials such the former Apollo Flight Director and NASA Johnson Space Center Director, Gerry Griffin, and planetary scientist and former NASA science chief, Alan Stern as the former head of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and the former flight director for several of the Apollo missions; then this venture has to be taken seriously.
I support Robert Horning and feel that it is inappropriate that he has been criticized for taking the initiative to create this page on a company that is notable, whether it finally succeeds in establishing commercial travel to the moon, or not. I also feel that it is inappropriate to suggest that this article be developed in private user space, because that would defeat the purpose of collaborative editing on which the whole Wikipedia concept was built. Especially for a page such as this, we would likely end-up with multiple starter pages, all hidden in private sand boxes, which would inevitably lead to an almighty edit war. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a platform for massive collaboration, we can't do that if the subject matter is hidden from the masses, especially for a dynamic and rapidly evolving subject such as this.
Enquire (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.