Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland Park Hummingbird


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Highland Park Hummingbird

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Colloquial alleged term for a specific auto part with no evidence of notability of the part or the term. Flunks WP:NOTE, WP:SPECULATION, WP:DICTIONARY, possibly also WP:NEO. The specific auto part itself is encyclopedically covered at Starter_motor. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see improved article and reconsider delete recommendations. Bradkay (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that this engine part gained any notoriety independent of te models in which it was used. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say, however, that one of the references shown to me by the creator, this one, is perhaps insufficient by itself to establish notability but leads me to believe older references do exist. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. If so, it seems to me the most this colloquialism merits is perhaps a brief mention in Starter_motor. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search for evidence of notability turned up nothing. I did find this book, but the book is just a bunch of articles from Wikipedia, including the "Highland Park Hummingbird' article.DinosaurDan (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Still Flunks WP:DICTIONARY, possibly also WP:NEO, and WP:SPECULATION, and the subject matter is still encyclopedically covered at Starter_motor. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've dropped your notability objection. Thank you. I'd say notablity is established by the starter article, which says "Chrysler Corporation contributed materially to the modern development of the starter motor... The Chrysler starter made a unique, readily identifiable sound when cranking the engine... This starter formed the design basis for the offset gear reduction starters now employed by about half the vehicles on the road, and the conceptual basis for virtually all of them."
 * I don't see the basis it failing under WP:DICTIONARY. This is an auto part, notability established, and the name is as relevant to the part as the phrase "Small Block Chevy". WP:NEO clearly does not apply to a name documented to be in use 40+ years.  I don't see any basis for failure under WP:SPECULATION, but of course, these last two you've stated only as possible reasons for failure, so I wonder if I should even have addressed them.
 * Anyway, what's left here is WP:DICTIONARY, and I'd like to see something more than an assertation, without a supporting discussion, that it fails there. Bradkay (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken; I haven't "dropped" WP:NOTE or the other reasons for nominating this article for deletion, all of which are based in Wikipedia policy. Your arguments for keeping it give the appearance of amounting to "I like it!", and you don't appear to have explained or demonstrated why the term merits its own article rather than mention in Starter motor. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 01:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think notability is established both by the article and especially by the statement in the starter article mentioned above "Chrysler Corporation contributed materially to the modern development of the starter motor... The Chrysler starter made a unique, readily identifiable sound when cranking the engine... This starter formed the design basis for the offset gear reduction starters now employed by about half the vehicles on the road, and the conceptual basis for virtually all of them."
 * Right now its just you and me disucssing this, and due to the sustantial changes in the article, I consider the other delete recommendations inapplicable. Should we wait a while and see if they return to consider the revised article?
 * You mentioned inclusion in the starter motor article. If you support, and I mean truly support, that is, would vigorously defend its inclusion against those who might not want it in the starter article, I'd go along with having most of it included in the starter article. Bradkay (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. Yes, I would enthusiastically champion the addition of robustly-supported material referring to the "Highland Park Hummingbird" moniker in context of the existing discussion of the Chrysler gear-reduction starter at Starter motor. That would be the best possible outcome, in my view. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Yes, I would enthusiastically champion the addition of robustly-supported material". Having seen what your apparent definition of robust material is, in the Barracuda discussion, this is qualified as to be no support at all. Bradkay (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Er…huh? Wikipedia has standards (V, RS, etc.) for material used to support assertions. You are reminded to assume good faith, please and thank you; I really did mean what I said: the "Highland Park Hummingbird" moniker would be appropriate for discussion in context of the Chrysler gear-reduction starter at Starter motor. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not suggested lack of good faith. Only you know your intentions.  I, however, believe the record shows possibly a misapplication of Wiki requirements, certainly at minimum unreasonably excessive application.  Has nothing to do with good or bad faith.  It looks like an error.  I don't see that similar activity on three Chrysler related articles is indicative of a trend. Bradkay (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodness, this conversation is certainly growing strange. Perhaps you might not have meant to, but you did in fact suggest bad faith on my part—you may want to please take a bit more thoughtful care with how you phrase things in discussions. I'm sure I don't know what you're objecting to with regard to Barracuda or three (unspecified) Chrysler-related articles, and I have no idea what "unreasonably excessive application" of Wikipedia standards might mean. The standards aren't optional, I didn't make them up, and they apply to all articles equally. I stand by my contrib history. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Previous objections resulting in delete recommendations addressed by revisions.Bradkay (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has seemed to meet standards above many articles I see that are considered acceptable. Jab843 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hemmings Motor News appears to be an independent reliable source but the reference only shows a very brief mention. The rest are either message board or forum posts. Did a thorough Google News, Scholar and Books search. As another editor noted, the Amazon link to the book describes it as being sourced from Wikipedia. Did a thorough simple Google search for "highland park hummingbird" without and with quotation marks. Most of the results point back to the Wikipedia article. If the principal editors can provide links here that comply with WP:GNG, then will vote Keep. No need to reference message boards and forums here. Thanks. Pmresource (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The rest are either message board or forum posts" This is incorrect.  Reference 1 is from an article published in Mopar Muscle (print magazine) and reference 7 is from Car and Driver, also a print magazine. Bradkay (talk) 02:33, 14 November 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.