Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Train Cable UAV

Train Cable UAV

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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