Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Altman

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 for all three articles. There is consensus that the subjects of these articles do not currently meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. If that changes in the future, recreation of articles about these subjects can be reconsidered. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Altman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. I cannot find any substantial coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. A brief mention here was the best I could find so WP:BIO is not met. I have also looked to see whether WP:PROF is met, but cannot find any indication of a substantial impact in academia. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Christopher Altman. I've also looked through sources in the course of editing the first bit of the article and also have found no significant non-primary sources. No record of substantial academic publications: if notable it would be for the 'commercial astronaut' and 'project manager' roles. The co-nominated articles seem to be in the same style regarding references but I give no opinion either way as I haven't looked in depth. Cyrej (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These folk are the first generation of private astronauts, and are likely by definition to be notable. Curious thing it is too. I suspect this Afd may be a wee bit premature, but understand the depth of feeling.scope_creep (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scope creep: Does doing a little bit of training qualify you as an astronaut? Don't you actually have to like... go into space maybe? Regardless, we need secondary coverage showing it is important, which I do not think exists. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say going into space would be must and obviously secondary coverage is important, particulalry in this instance. But I think it is certain, that all these private astronauts will be feted, if they go up. The plan is now on to get back to the moon, this year, and get some landing in 2 years. For Mars, the time period is 4-6 years, and 8 years I think for landing. scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with SmartSE. No coverage at the moment to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with SmartSE. Wqwt (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informative, well-referenced. --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidcpearce, trust me, it is not well referenced. It may have many references, but it is not well refed. The number of refs have been reduced from 168 down to 82, and the only reason I stopped removed the junk, when it was COI flagged, and an WP:AFD tag put on it. If I had continued, another 1/3 of the references would be removed (and the article no doubt, probably more), if it is kept. They are non-RS. Totally rank, and of no use to man nor beast. Look at ref 79. It is a Forbes sites subdomain site, where anybody and their dog can write on it. It is non RS. Ref 1 is worth a look, since it is nothing do with Altman, it is the work of completely different dude, who happens to work at Starlab, and that was part of the branding in the articles, that has now been removed. A common technique of these paid for articles, is too stuff them with references which are only tangentially linked, and give creedence to some other aspect and provide a kind of veneer of respectability, which doesnt really exist. So it is not well referenced. scope_creep (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Scope creep is on target. Spot checking of references found sourcing so bad that everything I saw needed to be removed (sources by rather than about Altman, or worse, sources that have nothing to do with Altman). The piles of bad referencing make any notability impossible to ascertain and cleaning them up will take WP:TNT. And the other two articles have similar issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they don't have significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear lack of indepth coverage for GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, fails the criteria for notability. Also, I came here because of the AfD notice on Association of Spaceflight Professionals but it redirects here. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:50, 26 February 2018 (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.