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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalam SAT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. Being one among many similar student experiments, not sure why this thing has a page to it. Skewed media coverage (often promotional) in India gave it undue weight often misrepresenting it as a "satellite" while such experiments by dozens are regularly flown on NASA sounding rockets. Page has no real details and might be used as promotional platform.  Ohsin  15:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has two mentions in Google Scholar, would seem notable enough as a cube sat. Oaktree b (talk)`

How in the world is two mentions on Google Scholar supposed to be anywhere near notability? Even two citations on a more selective citation search engine (GS is notorious for indiscriminately listing low-quality sources) like Web of Science or Scopus wouldn't be enough worth mentioning for an article AfD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b:@Kingofaces43: However those mentions don't cite any worthy details on its payload. One 'feature article' highlights few points but they all are with caveat, proper satellites with 3D printed bus have orbited prior to this,^[1] the mass and form factor they cite are hard requirements for every student experiment on those suborbital flights through Cubes in Space, nothing unique there. Seeds are one of the commonest things sent on such CanSats too. The claimed firsts on smallest/lightest don't accompany any details while KickSat carried smaller chipsats with their own power generation capability, telemetry package and MEMS gyros all in one. All the claimed records appear to be registered on dubious 'record books'. On KalamSat V2 they fail to mention that they used a ready-made cubesat kit by Interorbital systems.^[2][3]  Ohsin  16:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I took a look at the sources and what the nom mentions, and I have to agree with them on lack of notability.

This is just about a sounding rocket experiment where the "satellite" in question was just a normal measuring device in "flight" for 12 minutes. Calling it a satellite seems to be purposely confusing, and the nom mentions a sort of real-world WP:PUFFERY issue where it seems like the sources are actively engaging in it. With that in mind, when you try to dig into what little meat there is in sources, there's nothing that really sets it apart from any other similar experiment save for the grasping at straws look of whatever press release most of the sources originate from. Nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG in that context. It's good to get kids involved in science, but encyclopedia-worthy it is not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Most of the references raise an interesting question: can you establish notability by citing reputable secondary sources which completely mischaracterise the article's subject? I don't think so, but I'm new to deletion discussions and might be wrong. The first reference, which does not call the cube a satellite, barely mentions Kalam SAT. If the articles which are so poor that they call the cube a satellite are discounted, that leaves everything hanging on the Financial Express article. I think an acceptable article could be made about this project, but this is not it. In addition to the notability issue, the article itself is poor, IMO. There's nothing in the article itself about what data was taken, what the students did with the data, etc. It reads like a company press release, written by someone with no knowledge about the experiment itself.PopePompus (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with PopePompus – it's absurd that these sources just regurgutate the same false content: this is a payload among 60 small payloads on board the rocket, not a satellite. It's not clear that it would even "operate" as one article said, rather just existed with the rest of the items sent up. Not to mention all the cubes are the same size, so the ones calling it the "smallest" are also unreliable, it's just the lightest, though even that claim is only based on quotations from the creator. Reywas92^Talk 08:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.