Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InQube

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InQube

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable mini-satellite. No coverage found for this object, only press-releases. There is a fashion company with the same name that has many hits. No coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, it's like a press release without wider coverage. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is borderline hoax territory. Somehow a number of Indian papers have picked up on this spurious story of a - and I quote the article - 'Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) 1U cubesat'. That's a kit to you and me, a sort of RS Components small-sat. I can see no evidence it was scheduled to launch by ISRO or, indeed, launched. Is a 1U cubesat notable? Inherently, no, there are thousands of the little beasts and they are a popular platform for educational applications. Is this cubesat differentiated in any way? No. The article's claim that the satellite is intended to "prove the accessibility of space to the masses" is clearly bunkum. Delete with fire. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS, just press releases. JoseJan89 (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. As Alexandermcnabb mentioned, it's concerning that it's so tough to actually verify. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2023 (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.