Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidewaysbike

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:35, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidewaysbike

Advertising. Alexa ranking of 2,101,784. Preisler 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• SidewaysBike was a speedy deletion candidate. This article is self-professed advertising. Delete. Uncle G 23:02, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, advertising is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Dpbsmith (talk)

• Keep SidewaysBike This bicycle is a legimitate new invention covered by US Patent 6,598,892 entitled "Two wheel steering bicycle with latitudinal aligned wheels" issued July 29 2003. There has to be room on Wikipedia for the new (SidewaysBike) as well as the old. There is no product for sale.MGKillian

• Comment: I think a page for this is probably premature, but a redirect to bicycle might be appropriate if suitable content was made available. There are only two possibilities: Either this takes off or it doesn't. If it does, it's encyclopedic. If it doesn't I think it would still be interesting enough to have a short paragraph (and even an external link) in the bicycle page, as one of many unsuccessful curiousities. On that basis, Michael, would you be prepared to licence the contents of your promotional site (expecially the photos) for use here under the GFDL? I think that's the only use of this content that we can make at this stage. PS Michael, please make yourself a userid, and please don't use a colon in the middle of it, it's confusing and asking for trouble. Sorry this is so long, and no vote as yet. Andrewa 00:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I would be happy to licence the contents of www.sidewaysbike.com under GFDL.MGKillian

• Delete. Not notable. Apparently it is not even sold yet. JoaoRicardo 02:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 1) Self-professed original research. 2) Also: not exactly advertising, but clearly intended as promotional ("it is worthwhile and newsworthy to spread the word of a legitimate invention"). It may be worthwhile, but Wikipedia is not for such purposes. 3) "The Future of this Invention It is difficult to predict the commercial success of any invention..." That is another way of saying it is not yet notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now, inventions are more or less original research until they are actually made and -used by people-, when the bike gets made I'd support the article--nixie 02:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Move to User:MGKillian. If the bicycle eventually goes into production and becomes notable, this article can be reviewed again, but for now userfy. Megan1967 04:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When it starts selling and is reasonably widely available as an alternative to the traditional bicycle, we can have an article. HyperZonk^talk 18:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment An acquaintance of mine who spends as much time in bikeforums.net as I spend in Wikipedia said that it was at best a novelty or curiosity and not to be taken seriously. Search on "sidewaysbike" in bikeforums.net turns up nothing, seach on "sideways" turns up nothing relevant. Rather surprising as they love odd bikes (my acquaintance sends me pictures of the odder ones from time to time... ever see a bicycle made entirely out of bamboo? Or a sort of unicycle with an outer wheel over six feet in diameter, with the rider's seat entirely inside?) Sidewaysbike's inventor has been energetically posting in bike-related USENET forums, see this search, with no evidence of any serious interest. Typical comments: "mad stuff," "And this a solution to what problem?" "Well, from where I sit, that looks like a collection of novelty demo units whose sale to the general public would be the source of a certain amount of glee among the personal injury attorney crowd." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment P. S. Most favorable comment I've seen in USENET so far: "Why not just enjoy the design and engineering that went into this thing. Obviously it won't be the next new thing in bike design. But it IS a very cool design and implementation." If it were to become popular, of course, even as a fad novelty then it would be reasonable to have an article on it. Reminds me of an article in, IIRC, Science some years ago in which some researchers studying how bicycles worked, i.e. what was the actual physics involved, tested their theories by attempting to build unridable bicycles, ones on which it was impossible for a human to maintain balance. Once used a tiny little caster for a front wheel. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.