Talk:SatNOGS

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because it's a well established open source project. It has won a world famous award from Hackaday and has many contributors on both Github and on the ground. It's already mentioned in a couple of more articles around Satellite Ground Stations. FLOSS WEEKLY, a famous podcast around Open Source projects, recently dedicated one episode to SatNOGS. --comzeradd- 15:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've allready have pumped in several media reporting about SatNOGS quite a few times. Will try to fix your article which has some issues :) Phroxen (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

GNG
What is needed at this point is evidence that this article satisfies Wikipedia's WP:GNG (General notability guideline). Unless some evidence that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, there will most likely be a deletion discussion about whether the hackaday prize is enough to satisfy GNG. If anyone has more evidence (remember, read WP:GNG carefully to see what evidence is and is not suitable) now is a good time toe add it to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Added some coverage of the subject matter, there are some other sources mostly academic and industry publications and symposia proceedings that mentions the projects scope and methodologies, I refrained on adding them too. --Phroxen (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I happened by this article today, 3 1/2 years later, and it needs a LOT of work! Citations are nearly exclusively primary sources or statements are unsourced, the External links section is a linkfarm, the prose is not very encyclopedic, it is missing current status and context after it started with that NASA bit in 2014

Phroxen, if you really have any decent secondary sources like you implied on 21 July 2015 above, please by all means use those better sources to improve this article. (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * N2e Sorry for my poor choice of resources, I seem to stumble upon this project for quite a while but I'm very reluctant to add stuff. They seem to be very popular as a communications back-up in several Cubesat projects. I have some extra links but I'm not sure if they are relevant. They seem to cited in several research papers (mostly from University researcher's and cubesat teams using their network)     on the other hand I stumbled upon articles describing it as an open alternative to AWS Ground-stations service   or that one a radio telescope is hooked up the network . Should any of these worth to be added?


 * Great work, Phroxen! The article still needs work, but your citations definitely make the article meet WP:GNC, so there's not much question of it failongAfD if it were to be nominated.  So that ends this Talk page section.  N2e (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and improving the article
As to your specific question, Phroxen, the answer has a couple of parts. To the extent any of these decondary sources support a statement or claim currently in the article, or a statement/claim that ought to be made in the article for it to do a better job of encyclopedically covering the topic of SatNOGS, then the answer is definitely "yes." Just use each one, inline, as and when they support a statement. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to just look at the citation and say "yes" they should be added. That would be reserved for actually making a statement in the article prose verifiable. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your commitment to improving this article. N2e (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)