Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Train Cable UAV


 * 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. votes by spa/new users are traditionally accorded less weight then those of established editors unless thearguments given are well founded in policy. Proffered sources have been refuted so the only policy grunded arguments left are the deletion ones Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Train Cable UAV

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article deleted once already, "proded" on 9 December 2010. The subject of this topic has no objective reviews, only material sourced from the concept owners. The defensive weapon system has not been adopted by any buyers. It is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As you can see in this link (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/06/355279/video-iai-offers-latin-american-users-tethered-uav.html and http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/israels-rail-ri/ )the concept is merging and in aviation 5 years is the minimum norm for concept to be merged in to reality.After the failure of the SBInet with the concept of towers and the high costs of implementing UAVs like the Predator UAV,http://securitydebrief.com/2011/02/02/predator-uav-costs-an-analysis-of-alternatives-that-needs-further-analysis/, plus the FAA restriction on flying UAVs above USA borders (60 meters have no restrictions )and the political issues of flying UAVs near borders (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-flies-drones-in-mexican-drug-war-031611/) this concept could be merged into reality ,the operational cost using electic energy and queues of UAVs (Theory of Constraints) compensate the high cost of infrastructure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationman (talk • contribs) 09:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first link goes to Arie Egozi's article in Flightglobal from April 2011. Egozi writes about a tethered UAV which attaches to a ground vehicle, not a rail vehicle or "train". This reference does not help establish "Train Cable UAV" as a topic worth keeping.
 * Your second link to the Wired article only talks about a concept for Train UGVs, not Train UGVs fitted with a cable connecting to a flying UAV. The Wired article does not help establish the topic.
 * All of your other links shown above do not talk about TCUAV and can be ignored.
 * A reference in the article from TFOT, and another one from Flightglobal, announce the concept in November 2007, but neither article lists any users. Without users, a concept weapon is literally useless. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, only source is a press release and articles which essentially restate / rephrase the release. No independent examinations of the subject. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep : There is independent examinations of the subjet, http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2007004217A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20070111&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP , which found it usable and novel , a patent was granted . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationman (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that link only goes to a patent page. Patented ideas do not automatically earn notability on Wikipedia, they have to be discussed in mainstream media or used by mainstream users to earn their place here. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot offer two !votes in the same discussion. I've struck out the second one for the benefit of the closing admin.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was an edit and novice mistake I didn't intend for two votes only debate remark--Aviationman (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep : It was publish in the general media, it was patent so it is novel , the question is : does some one in the wikipedia sphere will ever want to benefit from that knowledge ? I think yes . --213.8.52.84 (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the above IP address comes from Ramat Gan in Israel, just a 20-minute drive from Rishon Le Zion where the company Planum Vision is located. Planum Vision is the owner of the TCUAV concept. The IP address appears to be randomly assigned to various users including vandals. It could easily be the same person as Aviationman, voting twice. Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Most of israeli ISPs are in Tel Aviv ,Ramat Gan ,and Rosh Hain, and most of israeli population is concentrated in Tel Aviv suburbs which is one hour drive radius.--Aviationman (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I considered a merge into Unmanned aerial vehicle, none of the references offered in this AfD by Aviationman mention the article topic, and the two references in the article that do are pretty light. If we allowed an article for every single un-produced UAV concept we'd have hundreds of mostly unreferenced, unlinked articles. Some of the folks from Planum Vision seem to be following this debate, and I would suggest that you come back and try again when you've gotten broader press coverage. When you do try again, please post the article to Train cable UAV, not Train Cable UAV, by the way. :)  A  Train ''talk 09:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it doesn't belong to that category in the same way that trains don't belond to car category they are both under the transportation category --Aviationman (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Aviationman, are you saying that this aircraft system has more in common with a train than with a UAV? I don't think I get what you're saying.  A  Train ''talk 20:14, 30 May 2011 (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.