Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASA spinoff

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASA spinoff[edit]

Advertising - it is basically content from NASA Spin-off a NASA PR tool. Also question notability as NASA Spin-off itself is the only source and articles on similar devices (LEDs, etc) make no mention of either NASA involvement and specific items Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to have started as a stub for the publication (hense the name) but has been extended by adding magazine content. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While NASA is notable, and many things that NASA does is very notable, it does not follow that everything NASA does is notable. Many of the items discussed in the magazine are themselves notable as well. But all of the references are internal to NASA, and a multi-page search on Google reveals no notable mentions of the magazine. WVhybrid (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It could be of interest to some people. If it is kept, it needs to be reworded so as not to sound like an advertisement. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kept as an article about the (non-notable?) magazine or kept as a list of products spun-off from NASA research? The first seemed to be the point of the page initially (and namewise) and I think it would be hard to stop that happening again. The second, under a different name like List of products spun-off from NASA research and completely reworked so that it linked to existing articles, had references from a source other than NASA Spinoff and had some criteria for being on the list (many of the items are listed because they have NASA funding, which doesn't really seem to have the meat that the concept of the list implies. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just NASA funding that means something makes the list, but also whether it is actually in use by the general public. Since all the technologies are easily available, finding sources outside NASA is relatively easy making this a prime candidate for cleanup rather than deletion. (I do agree this should be renamed. Is this article perhaps a spinoff from the NASA article itself?) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seemed to miss my point. Spin-offs off NASA research are more than just funding arrangements. Lots of businesses, financial bodies, charities and foundations fund research, but no one wants them to have a page, rather NASA spin-offs should be about an answer to the question "what did we get from NASA putting people on the moon?" rather then "besides direct investment in the space program where does the money go." As to the point of these products being used by the regular public, I'd like to see articles for the spin-off products or at the very least them having sections on other pages (their specific use of LEDs isn't meantioned at all on the LEDs page, for example.) I doubt it is a spin-off of the NASA article, I think it's a corruption of a stub about the magazine "NASA Spinoff". Seems the genesis is hereabouts [1] Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup, I remember hearing about this topic even visiting Cape Canaveral. At the very least, merge with NASA. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs improvement, particularly in finding and citing neutral independent reliable sources, but it's an important and notable topic which Wikipedia should cover and cover well. A merge into NASA seems impractical to me, because that article is rather large. — Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2008 (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.