Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Development Steering Committee

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. Most of the people arguing to keep are WP:SPAs. Other than that, Prisencolin is the only established user arguing to keep; while asserting that there is coverage in books, no specific sources were presented. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space Development Steering Committee (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Notability: I'm only seeing trivial or PR-like coverage for this somewhat misleadingly named organisation. Most of the coverage originates from the org's founder Howard Bloom, who is not a space expert. Article appears to have been edited by COI / SPA accounts. It was created by editor who confirms that he is indeed Howard Bloom on his Talk page and serves as self-promotion for Mr Bloom's venture. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still not enough actually convincing, there's nothing to suggest there's both convincing substance and then not making it simple PR. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – A user posted an !vote on this AfD talk page. I have moved it to here so it's not missed (listed below). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I very recently did extensive editing of the Space Development Steering Committee article. I believe the article now meets Wikipedia's standard for both notability and neutrality. Please see the Space Development Steering Committee talk page for a much more lengthy response by me to the proposal for deletion. GeraldBlack (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• keep, there is coverage in books. The current promotional tone of the article may need to be toned down a bit.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Prisencolin: Could you please indicate which books the committee is mentioned and / or provide Google books links?

• Comment Bob Krone, who is not registered on Wikipedia, asked me to post the following statement that he wrote. GeraldBlack (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was stricken as a second !vote from Gblack3947 (talk · contribs). If an outside party is interested in taking part in this discussion, they will need to participate themselves. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I first tried to submit Bob Krone's statement (above), which included his email address, I got a warning from Wikipedia that including his email address might result in a large amount of spam being sent to his email address. I therefore deleted his email address. You can still contact him at his phone number which is included. If you still want his email address, leave a message on my talk page and I will provide it to you. GeraldBlack (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KEEP I would also like to add that the SDSC works in concert with the National Space Society on a variety of issues. NSS has been a vocal supporter of space development since the 1970s. In fact, there should also be a link to the NSS to support the ties between the two organizations.Antoniusvivaldi (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Antoniusvivaldi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment -- the improvements to the article have not been sufficient, IMO. Here's an example:

• The SDSC is an organization member of the Alliance for Space Development. References to the SDSC have appeared on the internet and in books. Also, the SDSC has been a topic of discussion on three broadcasts of The Space Show , a radio talk show hosted by Dr. David Livingston.

This is citation stuffing, with non-RS or primary sources such as amazon.com, allianceforspacedevelopment.org, www.nss.org/about/bios/bloom.html, Howard Bloom, Scientific American guest blog by Howard Bloom, www.thespaceshow.com, etc. This demonstrates that the organisation exists, but does not confirms its notability; pls see WP:EXIST. The books that the organisation "appeared in" are from Lulu Press, which is a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source, and is not RS.

The section "Criticism" is not about the organisation, but about the position it takes, again cited to primary sources.

Lastly, the article states that "the primary activity of the committee currently is to produce press releases as needed." An organisation whose main function is to issue press release does not appear significant.

Thus, I come to the conclusion that independent RS sources have not taken notice of the group yet (WP:TOOSOON and that the article's purpose is to promote the organisation, violating WP:PROMO.

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the contrary, only 2 of the six book references listed were published by Lulu Press. The other four books were not self-published. The book cited in reference number 13 above was edited by Steven Dick, the former chief historian for NASA and by Mark Lupisella, an engineer and scientist working for NASA, and furthermore this book was published by NASA. Here is a quote from page 523 of this book: “The Space Development Steering Committee includes the second astronaut on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin; the sixth astronaut on the Moon, Edgar Mitchell; and members from NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Future Science and Technology Exploration Branch of the Air Force.” Certainly this conveys notability and is from a RS. GeraldBlack (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)— Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This citation proves that the org WP:EXISTs; not that it's notable:

• “The Space Development Steering Committee includes the second astronaut on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin; the sixth astronaut on the Moon, Edgar Mitchell; and members from NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Future Science and Technology Exploration Branch of the Air Force.”

Having important people as part of the committee does not confer notability to it, per WP:INHERIT. It appears (per sources) that only Mr Bloom is active; it's not clear what other people do apart from participating in teleconferences. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See my REFs 1-16 analysis below. I also searched for new sources with the Find Sources links. I can find no independent reliable sources that make more than a minimal passing mention of the SDSC. The only thing I didn't check was the 6 hours of audio, with no ref-time. Even if we assume the audio is a Reliable Source with in-depth coverage, the three audio refs would amount to just one source (all The Space Show). Notability requires multiple independent sources with Significant Coverage. (BTW, the three audio refs contribute exactly zero information to the article.)

REFS 1-16 analysis: #1 self-source #2 Passing mention (blog?) #3 Scientific American blog is had promise, but it's passing mention by a member #4 passing mention by member #5 passing mention by member #6 bare mention in a list #7 Book, checked, bare mention in a list #8 Book, checked, bare mention by a member #9 Book, checked, bare mention Hsu is on the Committee #10 Book, checked, duplicate bare mentions Hsu is on the Committee #11 Book, checked, passing mention #12 Book, checked, bare mention Hsu is on the Committee #13 Book Partial check, this strongly matches other passing mentions but I couldn't see the bottom of the text #14&#15&#16 counts as a single source, not checked, 6 hours of audio. Alsee (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After reading some of the recent comments I realize that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the SDSC does, what it is accomplishing, how the committee works, etc. This problem is largely because the article in its current form doesn’t covey this information very well. I am working on rewriting the article to address this issue and hope to release a substantially revised version of the article within the next day or two. I’ve been doing my best to improve the article so that it meets the high standards set by Wikipedia.

My knowledge about the SDSC stems from the fact that I joined the committee about 2 years ago and have participated in most of the weekly teleconference calls since that time. I previously disclosed this information on the SDSC talk page but am repeating it now since someone might have missed the earlier posting. It has only been about a month since I became a Wikipedia editor and I’m still a novice regarding all the abbreviations, jargon, editing procedures and policies that are a part of Wikipedia. Please forgive me if I have deviated from the correct procedures.GeraldBlack (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)— Gblack3947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment I just completed making substantial changes to the Wikipedia article. It is now more informative and will give the reader a better understanding of what the Space Development Steering Committee is all about. Included is information about Space Development Steering Committee activities that was not in the previous version of the article. GeraldBlack (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Unfortunately, the current version is not an improvement. It reads like the org's web page, and wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. For example, it includes a list of non-notable individuals of no encyclopedic value:

Other active members of the SDSC include:

Bruce Pittman, Director of Flight Projects & Chief System Engineer, NASA Space Portal, NASA Ames Research Center

Fred Becker, a systems engineer who has worked on the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, X-33, Atlas, Delta, Pegasus, Taurus, the Spitzer Space Telescope, the Lunar Prospector, Pluto New Horizons, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and the Gravity Probe B.

Gary Barnhard, former executive director of the National Space Society, a robotic space systems engineer who worked with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center to support the development of the International Space Station User Information System Requirements.

John Strickland, board member, National Space Society

I believe the editor who made the changes has a self-admitted conflict of interest (having participated in the teleconferences of the org). It may be best for them to not edit the article. (But I would let an admin decide whether COI is present or not).

In any case, I still reiterate my "Delete" nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the COI issue, it is true that about 2 years ago that I started taking part in the organization’s teleconferences, as I disclosed earlier. However, I would like to point out that no one on the committee receives any pay or compensation of any kind, so there is no financial issue at stake here. We volunteer our time freely because we believe in the value of our work.

Since most of the organization’s work is behind the scenes, it would be difficult for someone who has not been participating in the teleconferences to write a good article or to keep the article up to date. If we were to insist on absolute purity regarding the COI issue, then the quality of Wikipedia articles would go way down.

The important issue is not whether my involvement on the committee is sufficient to raise a COI issue, but rather whether the article is written from a neutral point of view. In the editing I’ve done over the last month, I have done my very best to ensure that the article is neutral. For instance, I added a section titled “Criticism” that includes opposing views on policy than that taken by the SDSC. If anyone still believes that the article is not neutral, let’s discuss why so we can remedy the problem. That’s a much better solution than deleting the article over this issue. GeraldBlack (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the article in its current form does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as WP:V and WP:NORG. My suggestion would be to draftify the article, so that you could work on it in draft space, and then submit it to articles for creation. The current version is too weak for an article at this time, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Well, we’ll just have to disagree on the verifiability and notability issues. The article has been improved substantially since the deletion proposal was brought up, such that the article now contains 7 internet references, 6 book references and 3 radio program broadcasts where the work of the Space Development Steering Committee was discussed.

I also don’t think that the right course is to delete (or “userfy”) the article and submit it later to articles for creation. The time to remedy deficiencies in the article is now, while we have the benefit of discussion to identify needed changes. For instance, in a recent comment K.e.coffman was critical of the list of members that was included in the revised article. I added this list because I thought the qualifications of the committee members would be of interest to readers of the article (the committee members are all highly qualified career professionals who are experts on space issues). However, if most of you think the member list should be pared down or deleted altogether, we can do that. I’m flexible. Again, let’s improve the article so it meets Wikipedia’s standards, rather than just delete it. GeraldBlack (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this may help a bit: You're concentrating on what color to paint the spacecraft, when you havn't even filled the engine with enough propellant to get off the ground. The propellant needed in this case is 3 or more independent, reliable sources that significantly discuss the SDSC. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - Standard searches not showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. About best I found is a Universe Today article about one of their proposals[1] If better sources are found I would probably change my vote. Until then, suggest to move to Draft space (not User space). -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for news about the Universe Today article. This article does include significant coverage of the Space Development Steering Committee and is an article that I had somehow overlooked. I just added this reference to the SDSC article. GeraldBlack (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found two more references with significant coverage of the Space Development Steering Committee, both from Universe Today. Just finished adding these two references to the SDSC article. The list of references with significant coverage of the SDSC is growing. GeraldBlack (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2016 (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.