Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWANsat


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

SWANsat
SWANsat does not and will never exist. This page is poor advertising for SWANsat and William P. Welty, and at the very least its claims should be treated with extreme skepticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs).
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there is no evidence of independent press coverage to meet WP:CORP standards as a business or product. GRBerry 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep

CONCERNING THE CRYSTAL BALL, NOTABILITY AND CORP STANDARDS:

(a) The SWANsat pre-launch subscription exists today. The page has nothing to do with advertising. (Just to let you know, the phrase "become a pre-launch subscriber today" would be considered poor advertising.)

(b) The published work, Shareware Telecommunications, has been discussed/presented within the UN system, through the UN ICT Task Force.

(c) At least one military school website has published briefings concerning the technology.

(d) It is appropriate to discuss the prospects for success of future projects, provided that discussion is properly referenced and (I might add) using fairness of tone - eg. "SWANSAT IS IMPOSSIBLE" or "DOES NOT AND WILL NOT EXIST" is not fair.

(e) Patent holder's credible research is being used. Experts at the forefront of space communications are being used (check the corporate capabilities of the spacecraft vendor's directors and management, for example)

(f) Exceptional products that include certain "future-tech" items are acceptable. SWANsat's power payload, delivered by IOSTAR, is a commercial space nuclear system, built & technically owned by Sandia Labs/USG, overseen by the US Inter-agency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP), utlizing the "Commercial Reusable In-Space Transportation Act of 2002. A Redacted Portion of The Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2003." From any reasonable, unbiased, point of view, there are exceptional technology advancements directly impacting on SWANsat, RIGHT NOW, as we debate the existence/deletion of this WP site.

(g) IOSTAR has received notable, independent press coverage for its "SPACE TUG BOAT" in which its power payload (after its space tug boat missions are complete) are to be sold/transfered to SWANsat's communication payload.

(h) SWANsat is a holder of a satellite licence from a UN-member state. Notability criterion should include Government licencees, shouldn't it?

(comment was added by Wmt)

Sundry space scientists familiar with other satellite systems are not convinced that SWANsat can create a system in the order of magnitude that it claims. Without divulging proprietary technological secrets, more technical information on the WP page would assist the space skeptics among us to at least consider the implications of such a project. Giving SWANsat Marketing that opportunity is fair. Err on the side of caution, yet also offer due respect to the engineers of IOSTAR & ORBITAL & SANDIA LABS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wmt, believed to be William P. Welty of SWANsat (talk • contribs).

Lloyd Wood 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Note that Wmt is William P. Welty himself. Note that the two 'Keep' votes above were inserted by Welty. Welty claims involvement of engineers at IOSTAR and Sandia; this claim has not been substantiated by IOSTAR, as the only material I can find on this is from SWANsat, ergo Welty. Experts are claimed to be involved by Welty; let's see non-Welty-sourced, non-SWANsat-sourced, citations supporting this claim. There may well be patents involved, but these have not been cited. (William - if you claim something that can be disputed, you must either provide direct proof or cite supporting material as a reference to show that your claim is factual and supported by others. Supporting material that has been published and gone through peer review is considered good. I realise that this is unfamiliar territory for you - your claimed 'PhD' dissertation on SWANsat contains no citations or references to prior or related work, and is largely unsubstantiated.) Presenting slides to an audience cannot be considered publication or peer review. Neither can appearing on a miltary website. Obviously, since I created this deletion page and raised the deletion question, I'm for deletion, since that's less work than constantly keeping Welty's claims in check.

'''Wmt is not William P Welty. I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT WILLIAM WELTY'''. BUT, in one of his public presentations, he provided an online hidden document folder. It includes a PDF document of an IOSTAR/SWANsat agreement, early IOSTAR engineering studies concerning the powerplant & communications payload. As a layman, I personally found them difficult to read and I am not sure they directly addressed Dr Wood's key issue: high-frequency/low distance ultilization. Ask William P Welty for access, if you wish. Or call IOSTAR to settle this matter once and for all. Dr Wood, just because you have not (yet) read the documents in the presentation binder (the terms of viewing the page does not permit me to re-publish the documents) it does not mean they do not exist or are untrue.

Here's a challenge for you Dr Wood: will you commit to removing the deletion petition IF it is proved that IOSTAR is involved with SWANsat?

In the meantime, I have changed my "KEEP" vote back to one. I apologize for any inadvertant confusion. (perhaps you should do the same). It was an easy visible mistake that the volunteer administrator would quickly work out. I actually agree with you, Dr Wood, in that more IOSTAR technical information in the public domain would be nice. However, I am unsure if the physics/mathematic proof you are probably seeking is critical to the existence of the whole WP page. Remember that your bias towards new information regarding new satellite technology advancements will always be highly demanding & rigorous (not a critism) and therefore your level of satisfation and demand for proof is much higher than the rest. The SWANsat WP article is not a scholarly debate forum, that is why I hope you will accept my challenge above.

Also, kindly remove your snide comments of mistaken identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wmt, believed to be William P. Welty of SWANsat (talk • contribs).

Lloyd Wood 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * William P. Welty would obviously have a vested interest in SwanSat. William is often written Wm. WelT? The inference that can be drawn is obvious. If you're not William P. Welty, just who are you, then? His twin brother Charles Welty? Encyclopaedic veracity should not have to reply on hidden documents. My request for deletion stands; SWANsat is largely one man's dream, will not be built for a large number of reasons not limited to available power/frequencies/distances, and, despite the many claims made by Welty for it, it doesn't exist. Will Welty use the existence of a Wikipedia page on SWANsat as evidence of support for SWANsat? Likely - he'll probably list it as another milestone.


 * Delete as it fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. --Huon 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

—————

'Dr Wood, I will not ask Huon to identify her/himself! Again, for clarification: I'm not William Welty or Charles Welty. Your barking up the wrong identity tree and you are looking desperate each time you bark, which is frightfully often. Here is a response to Huon's concerns:'

Reliable Source: Issue#1: "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?"

Response: SWANsat is a holder of a satellite licence. William Welty has expertise in this area. He held an FCC satellite licence previously (after a number of transfers, it is now known as Direct TV). SWANsat corporate partners are of impecable note. Please note that (a) Dr Wood does not discredit IOSTAR, Orbital, Sandia Labs - just the licence holder - and (b) that he is not willing to contact Government of Nauru, SWANsat or IOSTAR for confirmation - he just wants to Google the net.

'''Reliable Source: Issue#2. Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.'''

Response: I think SWANsat might fail this test to some degree - especially in terms of it being widely known. I guess that is what SWANsat Marketing is trying to achieve through the United Nations System & their website. Having said that, here is Dr. Jim Stewart, President of IOSTAR Corp: 'Revolutionary Space Systems of the Horizon: Disruptive Technologies can Change Industries' and Technology Review and Update (A short course designed for military, government and civilian technical personnel and decision makers interested in refreshing and updating their knowledge in important technical areas). IF SWANsat's partners are connected to the US military establishment, then I guess it makes common sense that its research and development would not be as widely known as Dr Wood would like. For example, we know that the Chairman of IOSTAR has been involved with DARPA projects in the past. This would enhance the source reliability, not diminish it.

'''Reliable Source: Issue#3. Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.'''

Response: A system that can provide 600 million broadband connections is always going to be controversial. Yet if the power & spectrum problems are dealt with, with (a) an ion-propelled power-plant (ie. not solar panels - with 250,000 - 500,000 watts of power) and (b) 10 GHz of spectrum (3G auctions were in the tens of megahertz), the handset might seem the biggest hurdle - impossible? no, difficult? yes. Dr Wood supports 'elegant' systems like Iridium & Teledesic, yet is now against the architects who designed Iridium & Teledesic. Despite this 'flip-flop', I consider Dr Wood a reliable source, albeit, a little in the dark at this present time.

'''Reliable Source: Issue #4. Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.'''

Response: The licence that SWANsat has involves the W-Band. Dr Wood believes it cannot be used. The Italian Space Agency would beg to differ with him on that - 6 years ago they published this academic report that discusses Project DAVID (Data And Video Interaction Distribution) and the feasibility of using the W-band for broadband telecommunications via satellite.: Exploiting the W-Band for High Capacity Satellite Communication. This link is from the IEEE. Subscription needed to access the PDF. Ironically, it is hidden from the public. Also Inspec Alerts references Satellite Communications & Project DAVID, Issue 2003-002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wmt, believed to be William P. Welty of SWANsat (talk • contribs).

Early Experiments with W-Band Satellite Links, Perrotta et al., IEEE Aerospace conference, 2006. Lloyd Wood 14:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The public is free to purchase access to the IEEExplore archive. The Project DAVID proposal (then WAVE) hasn't been constructed or launched. As of 2006, the principal authors (who do not speak for the Italian Space Agency, by the way) are still proposing that the properties of the W-band channel first be characterised from low Earth orbit:
 * That is, the W-band channel has not yet been used from orbit; its channel characteristics have not yet been measured or understood, and the authors have built up expertise in that area and would still like to pursue that work further with practical tests in orbit. Meanwhile and entirely separately, SWANsat is proposing building a commercial service based around using the not-yet-characterised not-yet-understood W-band with untested technology, and claims that this technology (along with untested unproven unused-in-orbit power technology) will be operational from geostationary orbit only five years from now. That's not what I'd call likely, and not what I'd call a solid workable business case based on items entirely under SWANsat's direct control - especially since SWANsat is said to require ten billion US dollars for construction, itself an unlikely sum, and unlikely to be recouped by any business case. Unlike the DAVID proposal (or even Teledesic, which had patents and peer-reviewed papers to build early credibility and state its proposals clearly - Iridium and Teledesic remain elegant in conception from a networking viewpoint), SWANsat does not have its proposals described in academic literature.
 * Is SWANsat credible and real? Well, there's no available material around on SWANsat to convince anyone of this - saying you've been in the same room as people at a UN ICT summit and that SWANsat is associated with people who may be credible in entirely different spheres of expertise doesn't count; their credibility is not SWANsat's credibility, and it's clearly only SWANsat's credibility I'm questioning. (William Welty's credibility is not in question here: Welty's "PhD" is bogus, from a bogus non-accredited university, and was signed off by the entirely bogus and up-for-deletion Chuck Missler.) "Patent holder's credible research is being used?" Where is this "credible research"? Where are these patents?
 * The real question this discussion is for is: "Is SWANsat real enough to be worthy of mention in Wikipedia?" Claiming SWANsat is in some way associated with other people or organisations and that that makes SWANsat credible by association is not convincing, and not sufficient to answer that question satisfactorily. I can't even find press coverage of SWANsat. The Wikipedia article should not be the first definitive description of SWANsat; encyclopaedias are not meant to be primary sources.
 * Are you associated with SWANsat? Are you also sending me anonymous feedback via my website? You can say everything here instead.
 * Most of the links on Welty's milestone page are file: links likely accessible only to Welty when he uses his computer.
 * Oh, and to clarify my previous delete request: Delete as it fails WP:CORP and WP:RS.

——

'''Thank you Dr Wood for your comments - the ones that stay on track. I will tell you about my interest in SWANsat when you remove your snide comments that YOU wrongly attached to my user id. I'm afraid, however, it's not as conspiratorial as you would hope or imagine.'''

Dr Wood, I am especially glad to to see that your statements have moved from "impossible" and "will never exist" to "unlikely" & W-Band characteristics are "unknown" by one group specializing in W-Band. That is a much better professional/academic position to take, especially as I gather you do not want to know or request the design specifications of the SWANsat:IOSTAR power/communications payloads. (Have you emailed or called them yet?)

re: WP:CORP

If the WP Corporate Notabilty test for companies requires (point 1) the publishing of non-trivial independent works, then SWANsat fails this test - just as it fails Point 2 & 3 (stock indices & the like). In a project of this magnitude/notability, multiple groups are assigned responsibilities. SWANsat claims to be responsible for licensing, marketing & financing. If SWANsat is the satellite licence holder with a sovereign state and has orbital slot assignment filings at the UN's ITU and has contractual ties to the space establishment, then its notability is surely confirmed. The likelihood/unlikelihood of financing is in the "Crystal Ball" realm, a realm that Dr Wood objects to. He is happy, however, to refer us to the Wikipedia article of failed venture Teledesic. The example is a lucid/relevant reminder that "success probability" does not fall into the WP:CORP criteria. (It is interesting to see how some academics are very quick to pass judgment on the academic-practitioners - rather than take a more moderate, side-line, 'wait & see' attitude). My point is this: please refer back to point "f" above, regarding WP:CORP admissibility of "exceptional products and services".BTW, early editions of the article provided a feasible way to finance the project, but I think Dr Wood deleted it.

re:WP:RS

As a pertinent aside, the development of XMax technology could prove an illustrative precedent in terms of Reliable Sourcing. Many were (and still are) suspect of Xg and its technolgy claims. It was always under wraps, with commercial non-disclosure agreements slapped on everyone involved in the project. The academics were furious they were not allowed to verify it. They didn't believe it could be, so they threw it in the "must be a scam" category. Why? Because they personally couldn't be involved in the buzz. Only one University Professor was chosen to confirm, verify & then publically endorse it. It now is being deployed throughout the US as real VOIP-alternative. One man's "brain-child" ... BINGO ... a new breakthrough. So as we turn to the topic of W-band space communications, we might be looking down the barrel of a similar breakthrough, perhaps with similar commercial sensitivities and Dr Wood voicing the concerns of the 'outsiders'. The brain child of the W-Band technology is obviously not William Welty, but perhaps one or both of the gentlemen introduced below.

Ok, back to the issue. Dr Wood argues that the IEEE article is proof that W-Band LEO communication is in the experiential & premature stage. It mentions that the design parameters of the experient were Commercial-off-the-shelf equipment, with 15-20 watts of power, on a lightweight satellite, in LEO. I just read the article and I really hope that the volunteer Wikipedia administrator does so too. Dr Wood just confirmed that W-Band space communication is likely in the future! Now that Dr Wood has reviewed some of the research that is been conducted, he has changed his expert opinion from NEVER EVER to NOT LIKELY. Facinating! Imagine what Moore's Law and five years could do if academics can change their minds in just a matter of days.

3 claimed aspects of the SWANsat/IOSTAR design parameters that are publically known are (a) 250,000-500,000 watts of power from (b) GEO using (c) the W-Band. To my & Dr Wood's knowledge the SWANsat Satellite has not been tested - no sats have blasted into GEO for testing. I ask, so what? A large piece of vacant land in the CBD/Downtown does not mean that it will remain so in the future. You have the unused land (w-band), you have the building permit (licence), you have world class architects (iostar) & world-class building contractors (Orbital & Sandia). This a serious project.

''It is also a NON-PROFIT service that if/when switched on, will revolutionarily change the world. It will help world leaders conform their written promises (to their citizens and to the whole world) into a substantial reality. (eg. Millenium Development Goal #2: Universal Primary Education for every child on the planet, by 2015.)''

Back to the IEEE article. In essence, Dr Wood just gave the whole SWANsat/IOSTAR project additional credibility and provided source reliability by showing that the overall W-band discussion is that: W-Band communication from space will be POSSIBLE. Now, we know that in Dr Wood's view, is that it is UNLIKELY, yet he now acknowledges that it could be possible in the future. I am of the view, based on the public documents that: given more time, with the right design and the right people, it could. Again, I will refer you back to point "f" above, regarding WP:CORP admissibility of "exceptional products and services". It will be carried out by exceptional specialists and leaders in the nuclear and space communication industries. The US Government is a significant stake-holder, providing both capital and labour. They are providing financing of up to $1.5 billion through new legislation (see news report) and also providing nuclear scientists at Sandia Labs (see news report). Someone has to be the first to do it, just like the man on the moon. Despite the NAY-SAYERS, why not let the people in the best position to do it, who believe they can do it, with the licence to do it, AT LEAST attempt to do it. The SWANsat/IOSTAR project is noteworthy and credible. Wikipedia should not delete the article.

Dr Wood admits to the (source?, at least industry) credibility of IOSTAR. This is an extremely important fact because the most disturbing claim is by IOSTAR President, Dr Jim Stewart himself, when he notes that 100Ghz [W-Band] communications from GEO is within IOSTAR's capabilities (see heading). Maybe the details are in HIS text books? Maybe they are military secrets? Maybe they are commercial secrets? Maybe IOSTAR would need to weigh into this discussion with some sort of proof, verification, clarification (a note of recommendation for the volunteer wiki administrator, reviewing this page)

The patent holders I mentioned are found on IOSTAR's website and are detailed here:

Dr. James Stuart. Dr. Stuart has vast experience in design, development, procurement and business development of advanced space system designs and program development of commercial systems. He has served as an Independent Consultant; Vice President and Chief Architect, Teledesic Corporation; Chief Engineer and Chief Scientist,Ball Aerospace, founding Chief Engineer of Orbital Sciences Corp and Mission Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dr. Stuart received a B.S. Physics, University of Washington; M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California; M.S., Operations Research, University of Southern California; and Ph.D, Systems Engineering, University of Southern California. He holds 9 patents, was the author of two textbooks and has published over 150 professional papers on space systems.

Robert F. D'Ausilio. Mr. D'Ausilio has wide and unique experience in design, development, engineering and management of space and satellite systems. He is founder, president and CEO of Intraspace Corporation that specializes in aerospace technology and development of satellite technology for commercial applications. Mr. D'Ausilio has held positions as: Assistance Vice President of Space Communications Company (Partnership of Fairchild Industries and Continental Telecom, Inc.) and Program Manager of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS); Program Manager, Space Operations and Satellite System Division, Rockwell International; NAVSTAR-7 (GPS) Program Manger, Rockwell International; Lead Engineer and Supervisor of the Apollo Test and Engineering Evaluation Lab, Rockwell International Corp. Mr. D'Ausilio holds a B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Bridgeport, and M.S., Business Administration, Pepperdine University. He is a Air Force veteran, holder of five (5) patents and author of several technical articles.

Then finally we come to the discrediting of Chuck Missler: Dr Wood's attempt to discredit Chuck Missler flies in the face of his notable background.

During the past 30 years, Chuck has served on the Board of Directors of over a dozen public companies, and was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of five of them. Chuck Missler received a Congressional appointment to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Upon graduating with honors, he received his commission in the U.S. Air Force. By the time he completed his military obligations, he had become Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles at Lowry Air Force Base. Chuck completed a Masters Degree in engineering at UCLA with additional post-graduate studies in applied mathematics, advanced statistics and information sciences, and completed his PhD at Louisiana Baptist University. His civilian career began as a systems engineer at TRW, followed by a Senior Analyst position in a "think tank" serving both the intelligence community and the Department of Defense.

Recruited by the Ford Motor Company into a Senior Management position, Chuck established the first international industrial computer network in 1966. Leaving Ford to start his own company, he founded a computer networking organization later acquired by Automatic Data Processing (NYSE) to became its Network Services Division. He subsequently served as a consultant to the Board of Directors of Rockwell International for corporate acquisitions (which included Collins Radio, American Data Systems, and others); and has also participated in over 100 business ventures as a principal, strategic advisor, or turnaround specialist.

Directorships of Publicly Traded Corporations Cypernetics Corporation

Founder, President, CEO, Director (Startup: Computer network company, acquired by ADP, NYSE) Dec 68, $0.05/share June 70, $62.00/share Pertec Computer Corporation (NYSE) Director (Computer peripherals, personal computers; ultimately acquired by Triumph-Adler, Germany) Oct 73, $1.375/share Jan 80, $16.50/share Applied Devices Corporation (ASE) Director (Conglomerate: data processing support services for international oil industry, state lotteries, etc.) Mar 75, $1.375/share June 79, $12.00/share Precision Instrument Co. (OTC) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Advanced laser memory development for the National Security Agency, Department of Defense, et al. Extracted from Chapter 11 for Chase Manhattan Bank.) May 75, $0.05/share May 77, $6.50/share Hadron, Inc. (OTC) Director (Advanced developments, Defense industry) Jan 79, $0.12/share Jan 81, $5.25/share Western Digital Corporation (ASE, NYSE) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Semiconductors; disk controllers, etc. Extracted from Chapter 11 for First Interstate Bank; presently a Fortune 500 company.) June 77, $0.27/share Oct 83, $13.00/share Datum Inc (OTC) Director (Computer peripherals; cesium clocks of the Global Positioning Satellite systems, etc.) May 80, $2.25/share July 85, $12.00/share Helionetics (ASE) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (William E. Simon, former Secretary of Treasury, asked me to join him on this strategically sensitive ultraviolet laser project; we both resigned after a futile 13 month boardroom struggle.) Nov 83, $17.00/share Dec 84, $7.00/share Ducommun Inc (ASE) Director (Asset reallocations of the oldest corporation in California; aerospace metals processing; electronic distribution; et al.) Dec 80, $23.75/share July 88, $3.78/share, after splits and divestitures Resdel Industries (OTC) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Advanced developments for Department of Defense and other deeply classified customers; partnered with Boeing on P-3 upgrade; with Northrup on the Stealth Bomber; etc. Ultimately acquired by Dowty PLC of U.K.) Dec 84, $0.10/share July 88, $3.50/share

Each of these was a troubled turnaround situation. These directorships are only intended to imply participation; not personal credit for the results. Each was a learning experience. In 1989, The Phoenix Group, Inc., Chuck Missler's publicly traded development company, entered into an $8 billion joint venture to supply personal computers to the 143,000 public schools of the Soviet Union.

Technical Projects Dr. Missler has served as a consultant, principal, or a director, participating in over 100 high technology investments, acquisitions, or divestitures over his 30 year career. Some specific projects have included:

System Engineer, Subsystem I of the SAMOS Program (highly classified reconnaissance satellite program); principal contributor to major developments in the gathering of ELINT (electronic intelligence) information via satellite. While on the staff of an Air Force think-tank, participated in the programming of one of the first solid-state command/control computers (AN/FSQ-27) exploiting error-correcting coding. Chief Systems Engineer for arms control simulations for the early negotiations for U.S. Arms Control And Disarmament Agency (USACADA) in the Geneva negotiations; Optical processing of digital information with laser memories (as President of Precision Instrument Company); early exploitation of Fourier Transforms in search and retrieval of optically stored digital information for the National Security Agency at Fort Meade; Application of advanced statistical coding methods for highly sensitive industrial applications, including adaptive filtering and exponential smoothing models. Personally funded and directed the first microchip implementation of the Data Encryption Standard (DES) of the National Bureau of Standards, in concert with Carnegie Mellon Institute of Research. Served on the Board of Directors with William E. Simon (former Secretary of Treasury), General David C. Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Admiral Tom Hayward (Chief of Naval Operations) and Dr. Edward Teller, (Scientific Advisor to the President), involved in highly sensitive advanced technology projects. Served on the Board of Directors of the Computer and Communications Industry Association in Washington D.C. Former member: Association for Computing Machinery, The Institute for Management Sciences, Operations Research Society of America, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Order of Old Crows (Electronic Warfare Specialists).

- (comment was added by Wmt)


 * Comment This 30KB discussion is ridiculous. The relevant question is not whether SWANsat will ever work, not even wether it can work at all (see, for example, Huemul Project for a failed project, probably impossible). The question is whether SWANsat is notable by Wikipedia's standards (and to me, a license from Nauru or Tuvalu does not imply notability), and whether we have enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article, and that also looks bleak - for example, even searching for "SWANsat" on the Sandia National Laboratories website produced no results. If half the effort invested in this discussion were aimed at correcting these issues and improving the article, I might be persuaded to change my vote... --Huon 07:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wmt, I said: That's not what I'd call likely. In fact, it's what I'd call impossible from SWANsat. No contradiction or change of position there. I did not state that, to quote you, W-Band communication from space will be POSSIBLE. I stated that it hasn't been done. Again, you are attempting to build up SWANsat's credibility by drawing on the credibility of others - SWANsat does not hold the patents others hold. You're also selective with the facts, e.g. In 1989, The Phoenix Group, Inc., Chuck Missler's publicly traded development company, entered into an $8 billion joint venture to supply personal computers to the 143,000 public schools of the Soviet Union. - neglecting to mention that that venture failed, despite the price tag that you're presumably intended to impress people with. Shouldn't your defence of Missler, such as completed his "PhD" at the unaccredited LBU, which you have copied and pasted from http://www.swansat.com/AboutUs/, go on the Missler deletion page? Lloyd Wood 08:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP (as well as WP:ORG for non-profits).  No major media discussion, not notable, probably fails WP:V too. Fairsing 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails on its face WP is not a crystal ball, since the website gives a start date of 2011. Is advertising, poor or not.  This is not the place to determine whether the project is feasible.  I can say the article fails WP:ORG and WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties; question of notability arises from only 244 distinct Ghits for "swansat".  Holding a satellite satellite license does not meet WP:NOT, either.  Tychocat 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as insufficiently notable. No reliable, third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

__

The power payload via the "IOSTAR:SANDIA" link is established. The communications payload load via the "ORBITAL:IOSTAR" link is obvious (see Dr Stewart's bio). I personally possess SWANsat Satellite blueprints by IOSTAR (the IOSTAR:SWANSAT link). I am unable to redistribute them due to the terms of use from the page from which I obtained them.

Outside of Dr Woods scientific objections, the number of delete votes on this page are consistent & persistent in saying that the IOSTAR:SWANsat link is NOT (a) publicly explicit/verified by IOSTAR and (B) not publicly verified by third party investigations (journalists).

If (a) IOSTAR issues a press release concerning its involvement in the SWANsat Project, as the spacecraft vendor and (b) a number journalists write up the story, the WP article would then meet the stardards of WP:CORP, WP:ORG; WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:RS -- is that correct?

The objection pertaining to 'advertising' would still need to be addressed. The "exceptional future product or service" would/could/should eliminate that concern. Reality Check: No-one would ever fund a $10B project because of a Wikipedia page. The global implications of a notable, verified company/project claiming 600 million broadband connections inherently deserves public awareness, observation & scepticism. -- (comment was added by Wmt)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.