Talk:LightSail Energy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LightSail Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416184859/http://www.progressmedia.ca/article/2014/10/reaching-moon to http://www.progressmedia.ca/article/2014/10/reaching-moon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Unused sources

There is more sources to use here and here.

Yug (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to merge. Polyamorph (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

---

I suggest tentatively that Danielle Fong be merged with this article. Apart from the fact that vandalism and original research have plagued that biography for a little while, I do not believe it meets WP:NBLP. No reliable, in-depth source giving information on Fong is cited; all of its sources are either puff pieces or articles mentioning Fong fairly incidentally. Pretty much all of the interesting, encyclopaedic information in that article could be integrated into this one. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Reviewing all the references currently on the article, all of them are about Lightsail except the 30-under-30 pieces which are indeed puff pieces. It seems quite fair to fuse the articles. Arjie (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are more than sufficient reliable sources, including Forbes, MIT tech review etc. which are not incidental mentions, a quick WP:BEFORE reveals plenty more available sources, WP:NBLP is clearly satisfied. Polyamorph (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Secarctangent (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment If the OP had looked at Talk:Danielle Fong they would have seen that the page has been nominated for deletion twice, the result of the last discussion in 2020 WP:Articles for deletion/Danielle Fong (2nd nomination) was keep. This should have been mentioned in the merge proposal, we don't over-rule AfD decisions willy-nilly. But since you've re-opened discussion it is appropriate to ping the participants of the most recent AfD. @Gidonb, Falcon Kirtaran, Xxanthippe, Beyond My Ken, Alexandermcnabb, Andrew Davidson, ARoseWolf, Samsmachado, Reywas92, Kj cheetham, Trillfendi, and Joojay: Ping. Polyamorph (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Sorry — didn’t spot the deletion discussions. But I think it’s pushing it to worry about the ‘over-rule’ of a decision which is now almost three years out of date. I note that the article has barely changed since that deletion discussion — the only new material pertains directly to LightSail. I cannot see this article improving much from its present condition. Searching suggests that the reliable, up-to-date sources which would have to exist for this to be possible do not in fact exist — it really is 10-year-old puff pieces/conflicting news articles about the failure of LightSail all the way down. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As you admit, nothing has changed since the deletion discussion, and notability does not expire. While three years is a sufficient time-frame for consensus to change, to assess this a new AfD is required, not an under the RADAR merge proposal. Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Sources are largely in the context of her business rather than biographical. Reywas92^Talk 13:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per past AfD consensus and sufficient sourcing. That the article is a target of vandalism is not a sufficient reason to delete, nor is the fact that Fong has not been the subject of recent news coverage. Notability is not temporary, and that she has not been in the spotlight recently doesn't change that she once was the subject of significant coverage. If the sources in the article are not satisfactory to you, a quick Google will reveal additional quality sources available, such as:

• "Meet the 27-year-old inventor backed by Bill Gates and Peter Thiel", Fortune (interview)
• "Danielle Fong wants to reinvent the power grid -- using air", Wired
• "How to Do Energy Storage on a Massive Scale", The Atlantic

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Vandalism is not a reason to merge. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Is the proposal to keep LightSail Energy or Danielle Fong? CurryCity (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal is to merge Danielle Fong to LightSail Energy, so if this proposal were to pass, LightSail Energy would be kept. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  A merge should keep Fong in my opinion because she has received coverage beyond LightSail. She may also become involved in other events in the future. LightSail on the other hand was not a successful or sustainable company. It was venture funded. Most such companies do not survive, which is probably one of those few cases where notability actually is temporary. CurryCity (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per GorillaWarfare. Sufficient sourcing about Fong herself exists to satisfy WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.