Draft talk:Space Machines Company
Add topic | This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Notability of Space Machines Company (as pertains to draft page review)
[edit]I would like to start by briefly thanking each of you who have reviewed the draft so far, I have appreciated your time and the advice you have provided and I can absolutely see why pages such as this draft are scrutinized.
Although I AM making this Wiki page/entry because my boss told me to (and yes, I did read the helpful page that addresses this scenario), I do believe the company is note-worthy enough to have an entry.
The work of the company is important (we are developing hardware and software platforms that will help safeguard space, prolonging the lifespan of satellites and preventing additional junk and debris, which will otherwise threaten humanity's access to space) and being discovered by potential collaborators in this important work may help achieve this crucial goal.
SMC has had substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
The 3 top sources I submit for your review being:
Significant: The article speaks at length about the company, what is being developed and the launch of the satellite.
Independent: The ABC is a highly respected, independent media outlet that does not even take advertising.
Reliable: There are a team of journalists fact-checking articles and a retraction would have been printed by now if the information had been shown to be false.
Secondary: The journalist covering the launch (the event being reported) also cited several other industry developments and has conducted multiple interviews as well as their own research.
Significant: In addition to covering the announcement, this page/article also provides information about SMC's products and collaboration with academia.
Independent: The Australian Space Agency is a government body/department.
Reliable: A trusted and highly regarded organisation.
Secondary: multiple sources cited and they have synthesized information, so yes.
Significant: This is a full page dedicated to SMC and the pivotal role the company will play as a flagship tenant in the advanced manufacturing hub.
Independent: This is the NSW government (Minister's office), so yes.
Reliable: The information in a ministerial announcement is subject to intense scrutiny.
Secondary: Yes, multiple sources cited and the govt department making the announcement is not directly a direct stakeholder. ~2025-39893-07 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @~2025-39893-07,
- Firstly, per my request in my original comment, "if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid or being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please see WP:COI and/or WP:PAID). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV)."
- Accordingly, thank you for your declaration of COI above, however, please create a User Page and declare your COI there as explained--this is a requirement.
- You state that in effect the reason for the draft is because "The work of the company is important... and being discovered by potential collaborators in this important work may help achieve this crucial goal." That may well be true, however, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." (per WP:N). "Importance" is not a relevant criteria for inclusion; and certainly nor is advertising or promotion to assist SMC to "help achieve [its] crucial goal". To this end I again refer you to WP:PROMO.
- In relation to WP:THREE:
- 1): ABC article: I agree I think this can be considered a WP:RS.
- 2) and 3): I consider these articles to be WP:ROTM coverage in effect in trade publications, and not evidence of notability (as defined).
- I would encourage you to please peruse the links included in my original comment; and should you require some assistance with article, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a great resource.
- I trust this helps. Cabrils (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you once again and apologies for missing the instruction to disclose COI on my user page, I have now added this (in addition to the paid contributor acknowledgement, naming Space Machines Company as the employer).
- In stating the reason the company wants a Wikipedia article to exist, I may have provided distraction away from the reasons that it should exist.
- The company is notable, due to:
- Being one of the small number of companies to have launched a satellite into space (about which the article includes multiple Reliable Sources).
- The role it is taking in developing Australia's Space Technology and servicing industry (which again, has been demonstrated with several Reliable Sources).
- The novelty and utility of the capabilities being built, even ignoring the importance and urgency of the problems they address.
- If you could please elucidate why the coverage on the two government sources (sources 2 and 3 from my post above) are ROTM, it would be most appreciated.
- Is it that they are announcing agreements and investments, as opposed to coverage of the opening of the facilities? Or is the scale of what was announced not considered notable enough? Adzwithaz (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)