Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churchill Machine Tool Company

: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 with a Barnstar for Sitush on a fine effort at salvaging this article. Non-admin closure RoninBK T C 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Churchill Machine Tool Company]]=

:{{la|Churchill Machine Tool Company}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Churchill Machine Tool Company}})

The article on Churchill Machine Tools has no substance and it is very unlikely that it will attract sufficient interest from historians capable of expanding it in any meaningful way. This is especially true now that the article’s solitary graphic has been removed by the Wikipedia deletion squad. Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - might never progress beyond stub or start status but is still worthwhile having. NtheP (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete until somebody is willing to do the research to demonstrate its notability. Current references simply establish that it existed. Incidentally, the article seems to have been copied verbatim from reference #1; is that a copyvio? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You are probably right about the copyright violation, but no great research is needed to demonstrate notability - a click on the word "books" in the nomination statement is all that is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

::Do you think that demonstrates "significant coverage"? --Pontificalibus (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Just clicking on [http://books.google.com/books?id=23BKAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Churchill+Machine+Tool+Company%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Churchill+Machine+Tool+Company%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=1 the first of those results] finds coverage on seven pages, let alone the other 100. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - the company has a long history, and since it appears to be still in operation after a century [http://www.churchill-grinders.co.uk/], there is potential for further expansion to the article. A quick search of Google books shows it was an important company in pre-war England [http://books.google.com/books?id=k6FIMyG4SmgC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Churchill+Machine+tool+company&source=bl&ots=nYt1g1MH_l&sig=H1piCaCjE4MvQno6k6rhfwfIA_8&hl=en&ei=_RshTev8JYjSsAPHksGnDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Churchill%20Machine%20tool%20company&f=false] SeaphotoTalk 00:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - agree with User:Seaphoto and would add that the company was taken over by the indubitably well-known BSA business at the height of that business's pomp before then being merged with the Herbert business referred to in the entry - http://www.bsaownersclub.co.uk/BSA_history.html. Entirely POV but my own experience in engineering is that many machines manufactured by the company even pre-WW2 are still in use and as such the entry has the potential to be topical and historical. There was a book published called The Story of the Churchill Machine Tool Co 1906-56 and copies are available for research purposes if you have the money or are in the right place, so the article can probably be enhanced. Sitush (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep: Uggg, we need to waste time on an AfD on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons User:Seaphoto and User:Sitush gave. Just because editors might not choose to expand an article is a very weak reason for deletion. --DizFreak talk Contributions 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The Churchill Machine Tool Company has an important place in the history of the British machine tool industry. (A. Carty (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
  • Snow/Keep The article has been expanded since the nomination which in any case does not express a valid rationale. The recently added references clearly establish notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Having now come to comprehend the cultural naiveté of the typical Wikipedian, I except that this farrago of anecdote, allegory and trivia constitutes your version of ‘substance’ in the context of what passes for history on Wikipedia; not, however, mine.Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I am the person who has done most of the recent edits. I have MA & BA (1) in history, from University of Cambridge. I think generally the standard of verifiability expected at WP cf academia is akin to the different burdens of proof which exist at various levels of the UK court system. However, I do resent your tone. You appear to be good with flowery language and there is no doubt that you have a lot of knowledge of your subject: why not put it to good use instead of attacking people? I'm getting frustrated, sorry, Sitush (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep The subject is clearly notable and the article has been expanded enormously by Sitush (good job!) over the course of this AfD. There is practically no denying at this point that the subject is a very well-defined and notable British company. SilverserenC 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • {{done}} Time to close this discussion. Our colleague has succeeded in bringing to our attention the destructive effect of the 'Wikipedia deletion squad, and Sitush has continued Weiterbewegung original fine efforts to create a fine article. There really is a need for experienced editors to spend more time creating material, and assisting in improving the quality instead of inhabiting talk pages and engaging in the WP equivalent of suicide bombing. A happy New Year to all.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I can only concur. Sitush has certainly - and amazingly quickly - uncovered a huge quantity and range of sources and added greatly to historical knowledge. I must admit, I would not have thought it possible.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:43, 5 January 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.