Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuki GSX250FX
- 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. Only the Suzuki; no consensus about the Honda. Sandstein 16:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Suzuki GSX250FX
- Suzuki GSX250FX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Honda CB250F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete both
no realistic hope of expansion." These two articles are exactly the same as the 6 deleted in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZR250 and should be deleted for the reasons explained there. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
]
- Delete (only Suzuki) The Honda article contains deep, complete and unique information for the product, and is not a stub. The Suzuki is a perma-stub, because it's essentially an alternate name for a product whose page does not exist. Jergling (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is the ITSUSEFUL fallacy. All of the prose in the Honda article comes from unreliable, self-published fansites like hondahornet.co.uk, or is just original research. Subtract that and you have less than a stub. The rest of the article is statistics copied from Honda press releases. And the product is still non-notable, even if we could trust the information we have. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)]
- We have articles for every vehicle under the sun, and I believe technical specifications are always worth the bits it takes to host them. Consumer vehicles are necessarily sold in such large quantities that it's pretty hard to call them non-notable; consider that we have an article for literally every phone Nokia has ever made. Furthermore, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a fallacy - it's a laconic response to avoid when making Keep/Delete votes. I explained exactly why I believe the article should stand (It's deep, complete information about a unique product). As someone who's currently shopping for a motorcycle, Wikipedia's consistency and availability of specs has been an invaluable tool for me, as it was when I was looking for a phone before that, and a car before that. Jergling (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is quite easy to call many models of motorcycles non-notable based the simple fact that zero reliable sources spilled a drop of ink over them. There's no way out of that paradox: saying "of course it's notable!" begs the question. If it's so notable, where is the coverage?
If we kept an article for the sake of the list of technical specs, that would violate the policies
WP:NRVE. It doesn't matter if it's a motorcycle or a ballpoint pen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)]
- It is quite easy to call many models of motorcycles non-notable based the simple fact that zero reliable sources spilled a drop of ink over them. There's no way out of that paradox: saying "of course it's notable!" begs the question. If it's so notable, where is the coverage?
- We have articles for every vehicle under the sun, and I believe technical specifications are always worth the bits it takes to host them. Consumer vehicles are necessarily sold in such large quantities that it's pretty hard to call them non-notable; consider that we have an article for literally every phone Nokia has ever made. Furthermore, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a fallacy - it's a laconic response to avoid when making Keep/Delete votes. I explained exactly why I believe the article should stand (It's deep, complete information about a unique product). As someone who's currently shopping for a motorcycle, Wikipedia's consistency and availability of specs has been an invaluable tool for me, as it was when I was looking for a phone before that, and a car before that. Jergling (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is the
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:09, 12 August 2016 (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.