Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Bolle Barometer


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Bert Bolle Barometer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject may be notable enough, but article content is not independent(ly verifiable), created by a one-issue contributor. Also created on :nl.

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. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 08:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * seeing the consensus below, I have no objections to an early closure of this debate. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 07:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, 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). -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — florrie  14:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely exists and is notable for it's size. A quick search found a few independent refs...,, . Needs some work with inline citations.  florrie  12:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  DutchDevil (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There's plenty of sources that back up the main claim to notability. Gigs (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The objection is not that the subject is non-notable, the objection is that not every claim is independently verifyable, and that it contains "facts" like Letting the water barometer operate for so many hours each day without failure is not an easy task. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. Gigs (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 contents of the article are non-neutral, promotional and unverifiable, and has been pushed cross-wiki. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 16:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Then why not discuss your concerns with the originator or on the article talk page rather than on AfD?  florrie  23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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! &mdash; Zanaq (?) 06:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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! &mdash; Zanaq (?) 06:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. 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 here). --Pgallert (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Deal with contentious and unsourced claims within article, but no persuasive reason to delete the whole thing.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: 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. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: 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 letting the water barometer operate for so many hours each day without failure is not an easy task. This is a quite unobjectionable statement for a device of such considerable size and complexity.Os1951 (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: as per the comments above. Dan arndt (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. Platoplatypus (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2009 (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.