Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor

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 redirect to Troy Hurtubise. More content can be merged from the history if so desired. Sandstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor[edit]

Suits for US and Canadian soldiers, as designed by a Canadian inventor. From the tone of the article, however, it looks like he hasn't been successful at selling them to either army. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the article has been moved to Trojan Ballistics Suit of Armor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to have gotten some amused blog notice, but not much from legitimate news outlets; any useful information about this device would be more appropriate on the Troy Hurtubise article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several news outlets have interviewed him FisherQueen. And by that logic, there should not be a 300-page iPhone bill wiki.The Talking Mac (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that is not already in Troy_Hurtubise to there - where there is already a relevant section Whitstable Delete as below (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After deleting what already is in there, there will not be much left to merge. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, changed from merge to delete. Whitstable (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete removes the redirect, which should remain as a navigational aid. Delete also removes the history, which should remain in case the content is split back out again if and when the suit gets the more substantial coverage needed for a separate article. The two references on the article are sufficient to support keeping the redirect and history, but not sufficient to support a stand-alone article at this time. Dhaluza (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge While I quite enjoyed reading the article on the inventor that I wouldn't have done without this AfD, this product is pretty NN, at least until it gets significant coverage, which will likely come if it gets picked up by an army, until then there won't be enough info for its own bit and can remain as a part of the inventors article. Narson (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) The article does not provide much of encyclopedical information about the subject, it just says "something exists". (2) The article does not suggest widespread (any, actually) use of the armor that would make it notable per-se. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of this article is sufficiently covered in the Troy Hurtubise article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: With the improvements of the article it is now more informative, but I still do not think the article is sufficiently notable independantly of Troy Hurtubise, and the content is better represented there. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect to Hurtubise main article. He has been making claims about his armoured suits for years to anyone who will listen. Until proven otherwise, I am going to continue assume that the so-called invention has no basis in fact.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Troy Hurtubise. Redirects are cheap and useful if somebody actually looks for or links to this project. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am improving the page, please give me time. This is a notable subject.The Talking Mac (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be notable in terms of his life as he never managed to sell the design - or even a prototype through Ebay - and it financially ruined him. But on its own? Doubtful Whitstable (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least the suit's features are notable. The target tracking laser is a creative and useful idea. Also, the fact that the suit was built to withstand the IEDs that are killing our soldiers is definitely an amazing feat. Please take into account that this was not just him slapping something together after four beers and a night of Gears of War, the suit was developed with input from real soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan.The Talking Mac (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cool ideas about what could go on a neato suit of armour do not in themselves make the article notable.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you misinterpreted what I said. I meant that all those gadgets were the result of interviews with men on the front line, meaning that this was not him making assumptions.The Talking Mac (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what reliably sourced evidence do we have that he actually did this. His unsupported claims in a brief Web article? That's all I saw. (Even if he did talk to some soldiers, I'd still not be sold, mind you.) This latest suit of armour ended up being unsuccessfully auctioned, just like his previous "Grizzly-proof" suit. All this stuff is vividly true and real to Mr. Hurtubise, but I'm afraid that's where it ends, and why this latest suit belongs as a subsection on his personal article. only, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article before you comment. There are two video interviews with him in the suit showing the features. One is off discovery channel.The Talking Mac (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and what I see are deadlinks to unavailable articles, his own unsupported claims (including an invisibility ray!), a personal Website that is not operating, an old e-bay listing, etc. Nothing that supports a real-world notability for this supposed invention, outside of his fantasy world of claimed inventions. My vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage on the Discovery Channel and front page news in the Hamilton Spectator seem ample proofs of notability. The editor of this article seems new and so could use some help per WP:BITE. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Troy Hurtubise. I've added another cite, and although this technically meets the threshold for multiple independent sources, they are not substantial or in-depth enough to cover the subject to the level of depth the article goes, raising issues of WP:NOR. The inventor is certainly notable enough for the media coverage of his exploits, and the section in that article can be expanded with the WP:V content from this article. The effort needed to clean up this article would be better spent cleaning up that one. If the suit becomes sufficiently notable later, the content can always be split out again. Dhaluza (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Covered worldwide by tons of news sources, see this among others. --Shark face 217 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a re-publication from existing sources, rather than original reporting. The problem is that this article is longer than the source you are providing (as well as the other RS). So merging is still the best alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Troy Hurtubise (great article, BTW), which already has extensive information on this suit and on Hurtubise's other wacky "inventions". Gandalf61 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. —SMALL JIM 20:05, 2 January 2008 (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.