186:, I think that it is notable enough for my standards, if it exists. We have articles on similar "world's largest" topics. As noted, the article needs a lot of work and some sections should be deleted entirely, in my opinion. It does have the feel of being written by the person who built it, but it seems odd that he would not know the year he was born in (there is an asterisk after the year). --
505:: I can see no reason to delete the article. The Barometer does exist and stated facts can be checked and if found questionable, then those sections can be edited or removed. But this is no reason to delete the entire article. I have seen the Barometer and cannot understand the objection to a statement like
540:
Made improvements to this article, especially by adding sources. If you can read Dutch, I welcome you to the Dutch version of this article. I inserted 20 more sources there (in Dutch) about the barometer in the
Netherlands.
450:. While there are indeed some strange claims in the article, this is no reason to delete the whole thing. Take the contested sentences out, or document them (BTW, the challenge operating this barometer is described
139:
The four sources curiously date from before 1985 (the year this machine has been built), and two of those are not independent. I suspect the author and the creator of the barometer to be one and the same.
344:
That's not a valid reason to delete the article. Go delete the claims you think are unverifiable. The burden is on the person adding contentious information to find sources for it.
488:: notable enough - I'd place in in the middle of the Big Things in terms of coverage. The article does have problems, but nothing that a good copyedit and source check won't fix. -
283:
205:
231:
125:
92:
87:
96:
423:
Because I don't want to facilitate promotion. Anyway, I'm not active on :en, and only came here because I found the article on :nl. good luck! —
261:
79:
133:
324:
that the subject is non-notable, the objection is that not every claim is independently verifyable, and that it contains "facts" like
379:
What is unclear about "Subject may be notable enough"? I didn't start this debate because I think it's non-notable, but because the
451:
17:
49:
550:
535:
518:
497:
480:
463:
434:
418:
394:
374:
353:
339:
315:
297:
271:
245:
220:
195:
172:
151:
61:
565:
476:
83:
36:
564:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
471:
Deal with contentious and unsourced claims within article, but no persuasive reason to delete the whole thing.
546:
216:
370:
410:
Then why not discuss your concerns with the originator or on the article talk page rather than on AfD?
258:
514:
472:
293:
75:
67:
531:
507:
letting the water barometer operate for so many hours each day without failure is not an easy task.
326:
Letting the water barometer operate for so many hours each day without failure is not an easy task.
132:
Subject may be notable enough, but article content is not independent(ly verifiable), created by a
542:
510:
459:
509:
This is a quite unobjectionable statement for a device of such considerable size and complexity.
383:
of the article are non-neutral, promotional and unverifiable, and has been pushed cross-wiki. —
412:
265:
254:
Definitely exists and is notable for it's size. A quick search found a few independent refs...
239:
212:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
366:
255:
191:
493:
429:
389:
334:
289:
167:
146:
57:
527:
349:
311:
161:
seeing the consensus below, I have no objections to an early closure of this debate. —
455:
113:
187:
489:
424:
384:
329:
162:
141:
53:
345:
307:
306:
There's plenty of sources that back up the main claim to notability.
558:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
120:
109:
105:
101:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
568:). No further edits should be made to this page.
284:list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions
206:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
232:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
8:
278:
226:
200:
263:. Needs some work with inline citations.
282:: This debate has been included in the
230:: This debate has been included in the
204:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
365:. Seems notable enough to me.
1:
526:: as per the comments above.
585:
551:08:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
536:02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
519:08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
498:02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
481:02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
464:19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
435:06:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
419:23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
395:16:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
375:15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
354:01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
340:14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
316:13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
298:12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
272:12:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
246:14:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
221:12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
196:08:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
173:07:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
152:08:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
62:22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
561:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
136:. Also created on :nl.
134:one-issue contributor
76:Bert Bolle Barometer
68:Bert Bolle Barometer
44:The result was
320:The objection is
300:
287:
248:
235:
223:
209:
50:non-admin closure
576:
563:
415:
288:
268:
242:
236:
210:
123:
117:
99:
34:
584:
583:
579:
578:
577:
575:
574:
573:
572:
566:deletion review
559:
473:Dino Velvet 8MM
413:
266:
240:
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
582:
580:
571:
570:
554:
553:
538:
521:
500:
483:
466:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
400:
399:
398:
397:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
301:
276:
274:
249:
224:
198:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
581:
569:
567:
562:
556:
555:
552:
548:
544:
543:Platoplatypus
539:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
501:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
482:
478:
474:
470:
467:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
445:
436:
432:
431:
426:
422:
421:
420:
417:
416:
409:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
396:
392:
391:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
337:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
299:
295:
291:
285:
281:
277:
275:
273:
270:
269:
262:
259:
256:
253:
250:
247:
244:
243:
233:
229:
225:
222:
218:
214:
207:
203:
199:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
181:
174:
170:
169:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
149:
148:
143:
137:
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
560:
557:
523:
506:
502:
485:
468:
447:
428:
411:
407:
388:
380:
362:
333:
325:
321:
303:
279:
264:
251:
238:
227:
213:TexasAndroid
201:
183:
166:
145:
138:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
367:Niteshift36
290:DutchDevil
528:Dan arndt
469:Weak Keep
184:Weak keep
456:Pgallert
414:florrie
381:contents
267:florrie
241:florrie
126:View log
408:Comment
93:protect
88:history
511:Os1951
188:Kjkolb
121:delete
97:delete
490:Bilby
454:). --
425:Zanaq
385:Zanaq
330:Zanaq
163:Zanaq
142:Zanaq
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
54:Erik9
16:<
547:talk
532:talk
524:Keep
515:talk
503:Keep
494:talk
486:Keep
477:talk
460:talk
452:here
448:Keep
371:talk
363:Keep
350:talk
346:Gigs
312:talk
308:Gigs
304:Keep
294:talk
280:Note
252:Keep
228:Note
217:talk
202:Note
192:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
322:not
211:--
48:. (
549:)
534:)
517:)
496:)
479:)
462:)
433:)
393:)
373:)
352:)
338:)
328:—
314:)
296:)
286:.
260:,
257:,
234:.
219:)
208:.
194:)
171:)
150:)
140:—
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:)
545:(
530:(
513:(
492:(
475:(
458:(
430:?
427:(
390:?
387:(
369:(
348:(
335:?
332:(
310:(
292:(
237:—
215:(
190:(
168:?
165:(
147:?
144:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.