Talk:Austrian Space Forum

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Austria Low‑importance Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Couldn't we include in the article spelling out what OeWF abbreviates in German, not just an English version which may or may not be accurate. Tham153 (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for NPOV review

I would like to open a discussion regarding the neutrality of this article.

The current version relies heavily on primary sources (especially from the Austrian Space Forum itself) and contains promotional or uncritical wording in multiple sections. For example:

• The article refers to the organization as a "space research institute" despite its status as a private association.
• Some programs (e.g. AMADEE or ADLER CubeSat) are described with unqualified technical language without sufficient third-party validation or peer-reviewed support.
• There is a lack of independent or critical secondary sources in most parts of the article.

Per WP:NPOV and WP:V, I suggest adding the

template to the top of the article until these issues are resolved. Further discussion and reliable third-party sourcing would help ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality. 2003:CF:AF49:9295:F58B:747C:AE49:1053 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a lot of editing has since taken place to remove the content. Is there still a POV issue? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Remaining POV / notability issues ==

• **Lack of peer-reviewed output** The article states that results were published in Acta Astronautica and Icarus, yet no journal citations (DOI, volume, pages) are provided in the reference list. At present, there is zero peer-reviewed literature linked.
• **Self-published external links** The main external link points back to oewf.org, which presents the organisation in an overly promotional way. Per WP:EL and WP:SPS self-published sites should be used sparingly and only for non-controversial facts.
• **Notability test** Under WP:ORG and WP:GNG a subject needs significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

The article still fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. In that case an AfD discussion could be the logical next step.

– 2003:CF:AF21:1D08:C140:62D1:21C1:CCCB (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: "The article states that results were published ... yet no journal citations (DOI, volume, pages) are provided". There were citations but they were removed in this edit: [1] GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AustroMars

The AustroMars section was removed due to lack of independent secondary sources. As it relies solely on the Austrian Space Forum’s self published content, it does not meet the threshold of verifiability or notability for inclusion. 2A00:FBC:EE52:AF7E:6CEB:C61:B4B2:B92F (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The newly-added "Vertical Treadmill Facility" section would seem to fall in the same category. The only independent source is a one-line mention in a list of "ESA Ground-Based Facilities". GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the section the vertical treadmill facility. The link you mention to the ESA ground based facility is from the official European Space Agency Website. To me this is sufficient as an independent source, its like referencing NASA but for Europe :)

Also this organization is definitely notable but sure, remove any self promotion. Here is a link I found to all their publications: https://oewf.org/en/publications/

If we work together we can add these independent articles into the wiki to improve it. I'll get started and you can let you know what you think! Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the ESA Ground-Based Facilities source is not that it's unreliable, it's that it doesn't support the material. GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from. I would say that the source supports that the Austrian Space Forum is where the ESA vertical treadmill is located. Its a reliable source that points to ASF capabilities. You are correct that then the information about the treadmill facility comes from the ASF site. I'll look around the internet and see if I can find any other sources. Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found an academic paper, third party news article and ESA write up online that all supports details on the treadmill. Perhaps this section can be rewritten if you completely wish to remove the ASF references. I would say that now the majority of information is validated by these citations, however some specific details are not supported. If we remove specific details that are from the ASF site, we arguably will make the section less detailed. What do you think? Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including details from ASF is fine. We just need the other sources to establish that the treadmill is due for inclusion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Did my best to update everything to reflect the feedback. Space.tracker.nerd (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]