Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarsDrive

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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarsDrive

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

Non-notable organisation. After I removed all the dead or irrelevant links pretty much all that remains is puffery. Their website has recently been replaced after they appear to have lost the domain name and there's almost nothing there. Their main activity seems to be writing articles for Space Review. Despite their boasts their social media following is small and there's no evidence of industry impact etc. Even the spinoff technology company seems to exist only on Facebook. Searching for reliable sources ("MarsDrive" -wikipedia -twitter -facebook -youtube -linkedin) yields only 220 mostly irrelevant hits, nothing of importance. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG Andyjsmith (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is mostly an advertisement, and I can't figure out what the organization actually does. KSFT ^C 14:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarsDrive website at .com was removed in 2014 but is undergoing reconstruction at .net and .org due to be finalized by November 2015. Files and supporting documentation to show that MarsDrive is temporarily using its Facebook Group for ongoing activities and projects can be found in their files section on that group. Updates will follow over the next 3 months that supports the original article links and evidence of this organizations activities that were removed by other editors here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankS71 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement that's poorly done at that. Fails the general guidelines Ovo16 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated several 3rd party links and cleaned up the article to reflect what this 10 year old organization is currently active with. Human and robotic missions to Mars are a notable subject on WP and MarsDrive have been a well known and consistent contributor in this field, along with promoting educational aspects of this cause. Despite their website issues, if researched you can find many 3rd party citations of the important contributions they have made to the field they are in, and continue to make. We would request that the deletion notice be removed and we will endeavor to abide by WP rules for this article going forward in a neutral way. I am connected closely to this organization yes, but I do understand the rules of WP now and agree to work to ensure this article is factual and notable. Apologies to Andyjsmith also if I have been less than civil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.178.171 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that these changes address the substantive issue, and in many ways they make it worse. It seems the the organisation is pretty much moribund and even in its pomp all it ever did was put forward a couple of ideas that were listened to politely. Most of the new references contain only passing mention of MarsDrive and in no way confer or confirm notability. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While our notability rules for organizations are rather low, this article does not even have primary sources to support any of its claims. Dimadick (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2015 (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.