This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Agent Cody Banks, 2003.
"Best Inventions of 2001", TIME Magazine, Nov 19, 2001.
"60 Minutes", CBS, April 17, 2005.
"Myth Busters", Episode 32, June 9, 2005.
Perhaps same, perhaps related, or perhaps successor organisation?edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It would have been better if I had put this in this talk page from the start, rather than in the edit summary and hidden comments in the article. My bad. In its current form, were it within my power, I'd delete the article, per the WP:GNG heads of argument "Significant coverage", "Independent of the subject", amongst other reasons, as well as perhaps WP:SOAP, specifically "Advertising" ('... articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable...' Trek Aerospace, [1] and The Aerospace Corporation look very similar to me. My guess is that they may practically and/or legally any or all of - the same corporate entity; - parts of the same business group, - successor entity or entities of the same or related enterprises. Article may well be a candidate for redirection or merging. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply (Of course, I could be completely wrong. Like other very rare phenomena, it has been known to happen.)
I see no indication of a relation between Trek Aerospace and The Aerospace Corporation beyond a common interest in defense-oriented aeronautics research. Trek seems to be involved in personal flight (and in watercraft), while TAC was involved in 1960s ballistic missile research and nowadays deals in defense (and espionage?) satellites. To the best of what I could ascertain, Trek had 10 employees in 2003 (of which 6 were fired), while TAC's Wikipedia article gives the number of employees as ~3000. I found no indication of Trek having a pre-1996 history, while TAC is much older. TAC still exists, so Trek certainly is not the same and not a successor.
On the other hand, Trek Aerospace may manage to pass WP:CORP on its own; their 2003 crisis made quite some headlines. If you really think the article should be deleted, the most efficient way would be to blank the page and add a {{db-author}} tag as author and only major contributor. Huon (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Obviously I wasn't just wrong, I was very, very wrong. ;-P --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
