Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scaled Composites Tier 1b

: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 redirect to Scaled Composites. Not a lot of discussion here, but from what there is, the redirect seems like the best compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

=[[Scaled Composites Tier 1b]]=

:{{la|Scaled Composites Tier 1b}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scaled_Composites_Tier_1b Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Scaled Composites Tier 1b}})

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged in November 2014. Sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

::This is unrelated to astronomy. Why not inform WPSpaceFlight and WPRocketry? (not everything space is related to astronomy) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Scaled Composites where the topic is mentioned, with its own two sub-subjects. This does not appear to be independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename this is clearly a notable subject, the problem is the name. The topic of this article is the space launch platform composed of SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two. This is the only article on the entire platform. The name of the platform changed to become "unnamed" from its former designation of "Tier 1b"; the evidence of the platform existing is that they've already built hardware and crashed a spaceplane. Then problem is that there is no current name, only this outdated name. GNG is established with the multitude of sources referring to WK2+SS2 everywhere. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It would need a descriptive name, such as Virgin Galactic manned suborbital spaceflight platform ; from the inception of the project, the Scaled share has been reduced to much less as it is today. Virgin bought out Scaled's share of TSC. Then after the crash of Enterprise, the development program was taken over by Virgin. So the platform is now Virgin's and not Scaled's. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

: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.