Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThumbSat


 * 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. While a couple of sources were provided, their reliability was disputed as being repeats of a single press release with no further discussion on those sources nor mention of others.

The input by the founder of the subject (assuming it was really them) does not change this, since they themselves admitted, that they cannot provide any further coverage.

The subject might well become notable, even very soon, of a successful launch really happens, assuming that more coverage will be generated because of that. However, the potential for future notability is unfortunately not a reason to keep an article today. After all, who can see into the future?  So Why  15:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ThumbSat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD. Non-notable startup company. Fails WP:GNG Andyjsmith (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the references and their website, this may be vaporware. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not seeing anything in the nomination other than, "It's just not notable".
 * This is a startup trying something unusual and it is almost inevitable that their optimism is not matched by actual delivery schedules. Yet nor is it clearly not going to happen. I would welcome some newer news and better clarity of this, but I see no reason to delete it. Nor is it unsourced, as implied by comments here. Wired and Makezine are exactly who I'd expect to look to for coverage. As is space.com Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "It's just not notable" is actually a very sound reason for deleting an article - read the guideline. WP does not carry articles about hopeful startups that almost nobody has heard of. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an assertion, not a reason. Nor is "almost nobody has heard of" a reason: what we do care about is that Wired have heard about it, and chose to write about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any coverage of them actually launching a satellite, or of their business after the initial launch/PR push? Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They aren't satellite launchers, so no, there won't be.
 * If it a real business though - they've had a manufacturing plaint running in Mexico for the last year and their SDR (Software Defined Radio) groundstation product is available and being well-received in the radio community. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They seem to have been largely silent for quite some time. Absent any evidence that they meet WP's notability guidelines the article must go. It sounds like you know where that evidence can be found, so can you add it please? Andyjsmith (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG. North America1000 04:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Space.com.
 * . Wired.
 * . Digital Trends.
 * . Mother Nature Network.
 * . Wired.
 * . Tech Times.
 * . Geek.com.
 * These refs all date from October 2015 and appeared to be based on a single press release. There's been no significant coverage since then. So that's a definite failure of GNG. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep New information and citations added June and July 2017 to reflect recent milestones and to define timelines. More to come very soon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WickiLogger (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)  —  WickiLogger (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, all that was added was a couple of promotional paragraphs and a link to an undated post on a lifestyle blog. There are no reliable sources dated after late 2015. Moreover the company website hasn't been updated since last year. Andyjsmith (talk)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. no reliable refs for notability, and the argument replying to the AfD listing wads "It deserves to become notable someday/`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

/* ThumbSat */ DISCLOSURE - T.S. Founder I appreciate that TS appears vaporware. Space schedules change. We keep low profile to avoid over-promising. We have permits, hardware, signed contracts with launchers and customers. First flight Q4 of 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.250.121 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 DISCLOSURE - Comment by ThumbSat Founder Sorry to sound like a tweet in the original post. I am not familiar with the editing features of Wikipedia. To clarify the above, I can certainly appreciate the fact that ThumbSat might appear to be vaporware and a company that slowly faded into obscurity as many before have. I can also see and agree with the Wikipedia team's desire to purge articles of that nature. If the consensus is to delete the ThumbSat article as well, we understand completely. But I wanted to try to give an idea of the status of the company as far as the NDA's will allow. After a setback in permitting due to government redtape, ThumbSat became cautious of over-extending itself online and in the media and continued to work quietly to finalize hardware designs, obtain agreements with launch providers and gather contracts with customers. We have not run into anything that most companies before us have not had to deal with, but if you've never tried to get launch and transmit permits for a satellite, most people are horribly unprepared for the level of bureaucracy and redtape. In our case, we're asking permission to launch thousands of satellites. As a result, every schedule that was discussed in 2015 has been made obsolete. ThumbSat now has the required permits. ThumbSat has a launch partner that has now flown to space and we have agreements in place with several others that are up and coming. ThumbSat has functioning manufacturing facilities and existing hardware that has completed typical environmental, electrical and stress tests and performed well. ThumbSat has signed contracts with existing customers that are being kept updated with schedule changes and are comfortable with the communication they are being provided. Assuming the launch provider does not slip, as of TODAY (and that's about all we can count on.) the maiden flight for ThumbSat is mid-September, 2017 with a 2nd flight 60-90 days after that. ThumbSat is ready to fly weekly, we are only constrained by the availability of a launch system at this point. Getting to space is HARD. ThumbSat is hoping to make it routine enough to be bought by anyone who is interested. I look forward to the continued discussion by the moderators and we respect the community's decision. It's a tough job and I applaud those of you who choose to volunteer your time to do it. I will try to check back to see if I can answer any other questions. Thank you. Wade VanLandingham, ThumbSat
 * Please supply a reliable source for this claim, per WP:RS Andyjsmith (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source for what claim? That I am the founder? That we still exist as a business? That schedules slip? That we have the contracts? That we have the hardware?


 * What can I provide that isn't already in the article? I can send a photo of my business card or the satellite sitting on my desk, but don't think that would settle your doubts. ;-)


 * I will do what I can to settle questions you have in your mind, but if you need external news articles or tradeshow releases or business details, then much of that I will not be able to provide at this time, due to our previous marketing decisions. There is an announcement coming out this month, concerning a launch provider, but I cannot discuss most other business plans on a talk page of Wikipedia. The launch in Sept is with a leading figure in his field and he will make the announcements on his own schedule, when he feels it is appropriate, but I cannot comment until he does.


 * Thank you again for the discussion.


 * Wade VanLandingham, ThumbSat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C004:F640:8C98:4204:1BF3:1FB9 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that you have booked a launch for September (or any other time). It's not even on your own website! Andyjsmith (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as this is very similar to Articles for deletion/Alex Eroadster. The company may be trying to release a satellite in orbit (and I wish them best of luck for that), but it is hard to predict if and when it will be released. Unlike KickSat which has been released, this project is still on going and there is a lot of uncertainty (which I admit is common for space based projects). The news about the company seem to be only about the initial announcement in October 2015 which is usually reported by multiple popular science outlets such as Wired and Geek.com. This is an unfortunate delete. That said, I wish the team best of luck and hope their satellite launch succeeds.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.