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. Neither rewriting nor moving the article require deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarian Pigeon Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Another editor objects to a ((refimprove)) tag on this article for some strange reason. All the references seem rather thin and could relate back to a common source which is an hoax. But I think the conclusion will be: the technique was tried in 1903, exhibited in Dresden in 1909 but never used on any battlefield. The drawbacks, eg. shot down for food, listed in the article never happened but were anticipated by the military so the pigeons were never used. The army corps may well never have existed, so pigeons in aerial photography will probably be a better article title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator has failed to provide any rationale for this article's deletion. Reliable sources are already included, including Reuters and the Smithsonian. Even if the nominator's unsubstantiated speculation that this subject relates back to "a common source which is a hoax", which frankly seems unlikely, that would not be grounds for deletion. According to the deletion criteria, "articles that are themselves hoaxes" are candidates for deletion, but not "articles describing notable hoaxes". So there are no grounds for this article's deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - i am not a deletionist. I refrained from going down the AfD route and merely tagged the article for better referencing. It was you who, I believe, removed that tag. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're using an AfD to enforce a tagging that I objected to? Please remind me, which of the deletion criteria apply to a disputed tagging? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Malleus. Reliable sources are provided. There doesn't seem to be any real reason for deletion. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have you checked them properly? The weaknesses of the citations have been pointed out in the articles talk pages. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd like to see the evidence that my work is based on "an hoax", when I've got sources to The Smithsonian, the FBI and University lectures. If he's got sources to support such a claim, then I and others can rewrite the article to reflect it. However, I've seen nothing to support this other than a bunch of opinion and OR. I'd also like to point out that as the author of the article, I find it disrespectful that I was not notified of this AFD. لennavecia 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jenna, why do you think Google gives no hits for "Bayerische Taube Korps" nor for "Bayerische Tauben Korps"? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when was a lack of ghits for what you suppose a subject might be called in another language with which you are unfamiliar a substitute for what it actually is called in reliable sources? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would love you to provide credible citations especially German ones. Can you? The "FBI" citation is a repeat of earlier speculations is poorly written and inadequately referenced itself. It is clear that the author didn't care much since the footnote points to an obscure US legal case report about something else entirely. In any event just because NASA, the FBI and even a lecturer at a US hallowed hall of higher learning have mentioned something in passing without adequate citation themselves does not a credible article make. The NASA reference you gave is an archived pastiche of "cool stuff" from the last century and is not by an stretch, credible as it just repeats earlier "popular" reports. As for the Smithsonian - well they have been wrong in the past too - vide their attitude towards the Wrights. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're talking about a topic from the early 1900s. If I recall correctly, the internet didn't come around until sometime way later. <_< So I'm not shocked that I'm unable to find a lot of online sources at all, particularly in German, since I don't speak it or read it. لennavecia 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As well as the undoubtedly reliable sources already mentioned, Googling the title brings up a wider variety of sources, from NASA to the CIA. "I haven't heard of it" doesn't mean "it didn't happen". – iridescent 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have you checked those references? They are merely repeats of earlier references themselves. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the references are strong enough to show both the existence and the importance. DGG (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the point is that the citations when looked at properly are very weak and all seem to derive from one singe source. most do not NOT mention any military unit with this name and there is no mention of the unit name in German.Albatross2147 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If ever an article screamed "HOAX" it is this one. The photo looks like someone Photoshopped a big camera onto a pigeon. I expected to find one clever hoax from recent years with other writers uncritically parroting (!) the claims. But Google Book search shows mentions of Bavarian pigeon photography dating back quite a few years.Some are snippet view, but the search results show that if this is a hoax, it is an old one which fooled a lot of people. A 1965 British photography publication mentions "For example, the "pigeon" panoramic camera devised by Dr. Julius Neubronner of Bavaria was strapped around a bird and set for exposure by a windup,..." . A 1978 history of photography mentions "He employed also a carrier pigeon photographic apparatus and a portable dovecote. This small camera, for from two to eight exposures, was attached to the..."(shows up in search results, not in snippet). So keep and improve. (Edit) Found the motherload ref: Photographic Times frpom 1909 with details of the project.More books on this at [1]. The 1916 Popular Science article documents the battlefield use and has some great pictures. Would copyright laws allow 1916 pictures to be used in the article? Edison (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just looking at that article myself, some great background material about Neubronner in it as well. If this is a hoax then it's a bloody good one. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would urge the nom to withdraw so this can be closed early. I'm confused about the deletion rationale. Thin references is not a valid argument. That's followed by some odd speculations about pigeons and Dresden, and finally with a suggestion to redirect to another title? Generally noms have very specific ideas about what should be done with an article and why. Law _{type! snype?} 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RHaworth has actually said why xe nominated this for deletion, and what xe actually wanted to do but found other editors resisting. I suggest reading it in conjunction with the edits where both Malleus Fatuorum and Jennavecia say things like "take it to AfD", "Yes […] please just take it to AFD", and "Yes. It's a hoax.". Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggestion is that someone, either the nominator or you, provides a valid rationale for deletion, based on the deletion criteria that very few here appear to be familiar with. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You now owe an apology, for that rather foolish remark, to (for staters) Edison, DGG, and Iridescent, who all not only appear to be familiar with deletion policy from this discussion alone, but in fact are familiar with it, as evidenced by many AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sincerely hope that you're not holding your breath waiting for that cold day in Hell, 'cos it ain't gonna happen. This AfD was clearly vexatious. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are suggesting the reading of the article talk in conjunction with edits to find out what the nom is saying? AfD is not an Easter egg hunt. Furthermore, after reading that link provided, I am even less clear now. This AfD is a result of an editor frustrated that a tag was removed? Either way, I see no deletion rationale nor do I see where the nom is calling for an actual deletion of the article. Law _{type! snype?} 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm suggesting exactly that, if one wants to understand why the nomination was made. And your understanding is almost at the right place, although there's no evidence of frustration, merely good faith adherence to the requests made by those rejecting the tag. RHaworth doesn't want the article deleted. Xe just wants ((refimprove)), but that was rejected when someone else applied it, with "take it to AFD". So xe did. (In some ways, Malleus Fatuorum and Jennavecia only have themselves to blame for this.) The only person who apparently actually does want the article deleted is Albatross2147. The whole idea of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems to have passed xem by. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Malleus Fatuorum and Jennavecia only have themselves to blame for this." Blame for what? More like "thank". This is exactly what I wanted. I knew it wouldn't be deleted, and the talk page discussion was going nowhere. Just original research and opinion. I told him to take it to AFD because I figured here people would actually read the sources and perhaps find some others. That's happened, and now the article will be improved in a way it wouldn't have been from those providing nothing but OR. لennavecia 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Uncle G, I did not nominate the article for deletion. I said I might when I begged in Talk for better citations but then as I am not a deletionist I just tagged it appropriately. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, yes, the "Yes, it's a hoax, thanks for asking" comment. Sarcasm got the best of me. It was, what I viewed, as a stupid question. I mean, it puts into question NASA, the Smithsonian, the FBI, Reuters, etc. I had no objection to the expert tag. I welcome expert attention and German sources, which have been provided and I am very pleased with. I will work on adding them tomorrow. My desire for this to go to AFD was simply to end the threat of it. I cannot spend time debating OR. So apologies if my comments were taken as something more than sarcastic frustration. لennavecia 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've asked Hans Adler, who is de-N, to drop by this discussion and double-check the German. I hope that xe will. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the current references are very weak and appear to be a continuous trail of copying a "cute" story seen in an earlier (generally US) "popular" publication. The are no credible serious German references provided or French ones for that matter which given their paranoia about the Germans pre-WW1 would be expected if there were any reports of this sort of activity. There is no evidence that this unit was ever in existence other than the reports in the popular journals. That is to say there is no citation from any proper history of the army(ies) of Germany. I do not dispute that use of pigeons by the military as carriers of light weight messages. The article should be deleted and re-written from the Neubronner Vater-Sohn-Beziehung point of view ideally with a citation of the actual patent(s) and perhaps with a mention of the possible military use. I have pointed out the weakness of some of the citations in the talk page as have others. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others have of course pointed out that the material is reliably sourced on that same article talk page. That you disagree with those reliable sources is not a criterion for deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I cannot read via Google the sources that Edison cites, their being yet more examples of things that Google doesn't show here, but here's yet another source to add to the mix:
  • Robert D. Fiete (2002). "Imaging science in overhead surveillance". In Joseph P. Hornak (ed.). Encyclopedia of imaging science and technology. J. Wiley. p. 773. ISBN 9780471332763.
• It repeats the information about the patent, mentions Neubronne (no 'r') by name, and talks of the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" (using that very name) operating in 1909, with those 30-second interval cameras. Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hornak only repeats early reports - there is nothing new in there (and no citation). No mention of the unit's title in Gernman which what one would expect if this was a rigorous publication. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is probably the earliest mention of the unit name that has been found. But those are English words which was, so far as I can ascertain, not commonly used in German unit titles. Why can't you find an article with unit name in German? Albatross2147 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did you stop beating your wife? Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way: Did someone say German sources? Here are two:
  • K W. Wolf-Czapek and Hans Becker (1911). Angewandte Photographie in Wissenschaft und Technik. Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Zweigniederlassung Berlin. p. 44. […] das den jahrelangen Arbeiten des Dr. Neubronner in Kronberg im Taunus seine Entwicklung verdankt. Er has as durch Training erreicht, daß eine Taube 75 g, d. h. ein Drittel ihres Eigengewichtes, 100 bis 150 km weit tragen kann. Den so vorbereiteten Tauben legte er eine kleine Tragevorrichtung and und befestigte daran einen […]
  • Hermann Julius Meyer (1912). Meyers grosses Konversations-Lexikon (6th ed.). Bibliographisches Institut. p. 73. Julius Neubronner, Cronberg, hat Brieftauben dazu herangezogen, Winzige photographische Apparate in die Lüfte zu tragen, die dann automatisch funktionieren. Auf der Internationalen Luftschiffahrtsausstellung in Frankfurt 1909 brachte er Apparate […]
• There are other German language sources that state that Neubronner magaed to create a camera massing 40g. Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The dispute is not about the JN's invention it is about this specific unit ie. the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" and their supposed use of the cameras in some "European theatres of operation" which is not referenced properly.Albatross2147 (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a "dispute", it's an AfD. And the rules of this game are that you must provide a reason why you believe that this article should be deleted. It may help you to refer to the deletion criteria before wasting any more of your and everyone else's time. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only disputes here at AFD are whether an article should be deleted or not. (And please try to place your comments correctly. You've placed three right in the middle of someone else's comments so far.) To that end, the existence of multiple independent reliable sources covering the subject in depth, and allowing for an article to be written, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is sufficient. Everything else is a content dispute resolvable through ordinary editing, not a deletion matter, and not an AFD matter. On that subject, here's yet another:
      • Alfred Hildebrandt (1909). "Brieftaubenkamera von Dr. Neubronner in Originalgröße". Die Luftschiffahrt nach ihrer geschichtlichen und gegenwärtigen Entwicklung (2nd ed.). R. Oldenbourg.
    • Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I repeat that this is NOT about JN or his invention. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you bother to read the Popular Science 1916 article documenting the World War 1 pigeon cameras operating for the Germans? What is your problem? Are you arguing for a move to some other article name? Edison (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edison, I now believe that we are now at the point where there is plenty of evidence for JN's invention(s)(which I never disputed) but no real evidence for a BA unit of this name - so a name change and rewrite may be appropriate. Albatross2147 (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And here are two more:
      • Erich Stenger and Edward Epstean (1939). "Carrier-Pigeon Photography". The history of photography: its relation to civilization and practice. Mack Printing Company. p. 104. — dates Neubronner's patent application to 1907, and his pamphlet on "Brieftauben-Photographie" to 1909
      • K. Fuhrmann (1912). Die Photographie im Dienste des Messens: Festrede. p. 28. Die Versuche der Hofapothekers Dr. NEUBRONNER in Kronberg sind durch die Zeitschriften bekannt geworden. Der kleine Apparat ist fur 2-8 Aufnahmen engerichtet, darf bis 75 g wiegen und wird auf der Brust der Taube befestigt, die ihn bequem 100 — 150 km weit […]
    • Apparently, Neubronner published a pamphlet entitled Die Brieftaubenphotographie und ihre bedeutung für die kriegskunst at some point, too. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No real rational given. Ohms law (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to pigeons in aerial photography as proposed by the nominator, or to some other name. I share the concerns of RHaworth (the nominator) and Albatross2147: There is plenty of information around (including in German and French) that pigeons were used by the military and that pigeon photography was hoped to have military applications. What I could not find at all is any mention of the actual use of pigeon photography by the military. E.g. there is this source - probably not technically a RS, but it looks trustworthy enough. The author claims to have conducted an interview with 101-year-old Carl Neubronner (son of Julius Neubronner). From this I get the following time line:
  • 1904 first aerial photographs with this method
  • patent initially rejected for impossibility, then granted after authenticated aerial photographs of Frankfurt have been presented
  • 1909 Internationale Luftschiffahrtausstellung (in Frankfurt, not yet in Berlin); Julius Neubronner is awarded the messenger pigeon in silver for a photo of a housewife's washing in Eschborn
• If there had been a Bavarian Pigeon Corps, it would have been quite natural to mention it in this context. Then there is this source on Google Books. Two pages, technical details, 1909 exhibition, citation to a 1910 report in the Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung, called Militärluftschiffahrt und Brieftaubenphotographie. There were feasibility demonstrations for military use in 1912 in Berlin, and in 1918 the military explained that they are no longer interested in buying the patents, due to advances in aviation. This simply doesn't seem to leave any time for the subject of this article.

  However, it makes no sense to delete it altogether since there are related topics that I suppose are not yet covered in Wikipedia. Here are some sources for them:

  • L. Du Puy de Podio, Essai sur le vol des oiseaux en général
  • Photos of Belgian cavallery with messenger pigeons [2][3][]
  • Photo of a man with pigeon and camera, 1914; could this be Julius Neubronner? [4]
  • Gallica also has contemporary French books (online) that treat military use of messenger pigeons; just search for "pigeon"
  • Britannica 1911 has an article on "Pigeon post" that focuses on military uses
• I think a good working hypothesis is that the technology came a few years too late to be of use to the military, that any practical experiments happened in Frankfurt and Berlin (so not in Bavaria), and that speculation about possible uses and problems found its way into a newspaper in Munich which may well have speculated about a future "Bavarian Pigeon Corps". Under the circumstances the title of this article seems to raise a red flag and therefore require extraordinary proof. Having just learned elsewhere on Wikipedia that widely reported claims of Roman Emperors having imported British mastiffs ("Pugnaces Britanniae") for fighting in Roman amphitheatres [5] were completely false and based on the flimsiest of evidence plus a telephone game that ran over several hundred years, including more than 100 years after the hoax was first debunked, I think this is by far the most plausible explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, well done for Brons(2007)! I didn't see that. (I was using date-limited searches with a cut-off of 1940, to try to find contemporaneous sources.) That points in some new directions. Franziska Brons also authored a magazine/journal article on Neubronner the year before:
    • Franziska Brons (Summer 2006). "Bilder im Fluge. Julius Neubronnners Brieftaubenfotografie". Fotogeschichte. 26 (100). Jonas Verlag für Kunst und Literatur GmbH.
  • According to the magazine's editorial, she "erzählt, wieso seine hochfliegenden Pläne nur eine kurze Episode blieben".

    Jenavecia, this does seem to be a more reliable source than the Smithsonian, even though I have yet to find indication that Fotogeschichte is peer-reviewed. It's a German-speaking historian of photography, who is apparently directly using primary German historical sources from archives. (Aside from all of the primary sources cited in the article that M. Adler cites above, the magazine article by Brons has a picture of Neubronner and his pigeons from the historical archives of the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin, notice.) As far as I can determine, M. Brons is a lecturer in art history at the Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum für Kulturtechnik at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. So whilst xyr paper credentials may be less than those of other authors, this is, conversely, an expert on this specific field, with direct access to primary sources in the relevant language, writing in xyr field of expertise.

    The bad news is that it does strongly support the thesis that Neubronnner's work never took off (as it were). And whilst there are plenty of details in the German language sources that I cited above, including the masses of the cameras, how far the pigeons could fly, and so forth, I see nothing that contradicts this thesis (I hope that M. Adler has checked my German on these sources, as requested.).

    The Internationale Luftschiffahrtausstellung mentioned above is the one also documented in Meyer(1912) that I cited, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There are not a lot of info, however this thing exists. --NovaSkola (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What thing are you refering to? The military unit or the fact that there was an inventor called Neubronnner?
  • Comment I'm talking about unit.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a speedy close, as there now seems to be a consensus to rename the article. It is very dubious whether the BPC ever existed, while pigeon photography and its inventor are both notable and provide plenty of information to build an article on. But it should be closed with the understanding that the article will be renamed, since the BPC appears to be a hoax. It's very unlikely that this kind of thing would have been forgotten in Germany. We have historians there, you know, and other people who dig into the archives for interesting facts. It can still be mentioned, and a redirect makes sense, but we must not say more than that it may have existed. Hans Adler 07:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. AfD is not the right place for article improvement or reference searching, and other needy AfD nominations are deprived of necessary attention. This discussion sets a new standard for investigative multinational Wikipedia source researching. Bottom line is that we have a RS mentioning BPC, and then we have Uncle G's and Hans Adler's crisp words of caution. Wikipedia is not the truth however, only a collection of information in independent reliable sources; as such the words of caution, and the present absence of additional sources, bear a tinge of WP:OR. It is extremely unlikely that a novel spying opportunity of this nature should not have had significant military interest. Some military funding and experimentation must have taken place, and plans drawn up. Exactly to what extent these plans have been carried out; and at what level (national/regional/local); the exact name of the (experimental) unit(s?); the exact sequence of go-stop-go-stop project management - in an environment of no imminent threat of war, and alternative opportunities (planes) developing in parallel, plus contemporary press reports of state-of-the-art military technology - make this case murky. Jenavecia's standpoint could at least be defended as a minority view and the article title could be kept. However, I agree, that the article should not say more than that BPC may have existed - as it reads now, one comes to think of regiments of battle-hardened pigeons. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep but rename or (at least) remove capitals from "pigeon corps".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, with no evidence that the unit actually existed under that name, it will probably be changed to something like Pigeons in aerial photography, but were there evidence of this unit being used by the Bavarian Army, much like United States Marine Corps, the title would need CAPs. لennavecia 19:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad you agree we had better move to a broader title, but I think AuthorityTam's point (probably with an eye on !voters above who apparently feel the title is OK) is the hypothetical one that an article on a Bavarian pigeon corps that may or may not have existed had better use lower case. By the way, I hope that we can settle the question sooner or later: Once I consider the article stable enough I plan to translate it to German, and I hope that someone in Munich can locate the Bavarian newspaper article which is so far the only certain connection to Bavaria. I wouldn't be surprised if it mentioned an existing messenger pigeon corps in a way that could be misunderstood. And if it did exist, after all, de is also the place to find people who know about it. Hans Adler 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether the Bavarian Pigeon Corps actually existed or not—the jury still seems to be out on that—has no bearing on whether or not the title should be capitalised; the "Don Olivero, President of Ruritania" doesn't exist either, but that doesn't mean it ought to be written "don olivero, president of ruritania", they're still proper nouns. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think there is a subtle point here because whether the name is correct is even more uncertain than whether there was a pigeon corps in the Bavarian Army. Hans Adler 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's even more subtle than that, because sure as eggs is eggs if there actually was a "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" that wasn't what it was called officially. Bayerische Tauben Korps perhaps? (You'll have to excuse my schoolboy German I'm afraid :-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Probably Ba(y|i)[e]risches (Brieft|T)auben(c|k|-C|-K)orps. That's 4 possible spellings for Bavarian, two options for the pigeons (pigeons or messenger pigeons), older or newer spelling for corps, and hyphenated or one word. Altogether 32 possibilities. There is actually a source for one of them: "Bayerisches Brieftauben-Corps". [6] But the details are not available online, so I can't check if it's independent of our sources in English. Hans Adler 22:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Can we block Jennavecia for having the audacity to create this mess in the first place? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think you are confusing Jennavecia with Julius Neubronner. Very easy to get this wrong, as both start with a J and have lots of Ns; this kind of thing happens to me all the time, too. Hans Adler 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hans, I've been waiting for the AFD to close before making any big changes. Like I noted on the talk page, I really think we can probably get two articles considering all the sources you've been able to find. One for the pigeons and a biography. لennavecia 20:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I totally agree with you. Hans Adler 20:42, 23 June 2009 (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.