Deletion of Lynx (spacecraft)

Comment: It's exciting, Space tourism|space tourism, history in the making. NASA is now a partner. News of it's construction and test flights has reached 6 continents. It easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The rationale for deleting this article simply goes against -REASON and simply shouldn't be here.  This is an article content dispute that spilled over into the AfD simply to spite some of those other participating editors.  This is a notable topic, plenty of reliable sources, and issues of point of view need to be resolved within the article talk pages.  Ditto with complaints about source quality which merely needs somebody to bring in perhaps some additional quality sources to back up their edits, including the nominator
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: Was  followed? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-03-27-3049764844_x.htm, http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/xcor-aerospaces-lynx-spaceplane-ksc/ seem to establish 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG)

Comment: and a jumbo-sized {{tl|trout}} for Pete. Coverage in third-party reliable sources is blatant and in the article: ''Popular Mechanics'', ''Aviation Week & Space Technology'', ''Air & Space/Smithsonian'', SPACE.com, ''The Wall Street Journal'', and MSNBC are all third-party reliable sources that are in the article currently. ''Their'' sources are irrelvant; the bottom line is that there is plenty of coverage in RS to establish notability, and that the apparent  in an attempt to get this article deleted is disturbing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:FORUMSHOPPING)