Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Cruisers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Cruisers

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Alternative Cruisers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested WP:PROD. "An alternative cruiser is a motorcycle cruiser that isn't quite in the big 5 category (yet)" is hardly an encyclopedic definition. Judging from the low number of Google hits (323) for "Alternative Cruiser", it doesn't seem to me that the phrase has an established meaning. Delete unless cleaned up. - Mike Rosoft 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: A similar page, www.AlternativeCruisers.com, was tagged with {{db-advert}} and has now suffered this fate. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed; and I deleted the article due to a lack of claim of notability. This version seems to be about the type of motorcycles. - Mike Rosoft 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • KEEP IT !! It has a lot of imformative information about motorcycles "under the radar".

A lot more can be added if it is allowed to get started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.152.230 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I have cleaned it up and added more detail. I can add more, but the effort will be wasted if you ax the page. Bill Ramby 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Bill Ramby

  • Delete. This is WP:OR as there is no formal definition. Basically this is just a list of motorcycle brands that are not widely known, perhaps to give them more prominence. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If people don't know they even exist, how are they going to find the alternatives? Whenever I need to look something up, I go to google or wikipedia.Bill Ramby 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Bill Ramby

And it is not spam!Bill Ramby 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

      • Comment If a manufacturer is notable, there is nothing preventing an article about that manufacturer, which may be linked from appropriate motorcycle-related articles. Creating an article that is basically "motorcycle brands you may not have heard of" and dressing it up with a name like "alternative cruisers" is promotional, which falls under our definition of WP:SPAM. --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia has increasing power; it seems as if users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation, which isn't the purpose of wikipedia. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has increasing power" What an interesting and profound quote! I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a source of information, not an information broker. Statements like that tend to make one think that you like the power trip that moderating wikipedia gives you. You know what, just delete the page. Fighting you guys to put information on a supposed information site just isn't worth my time nor the frustration. Good day.Bill Ramby 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE: ""users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation"" Is this NOT the reason for an Encyclopedia ? To use as a source of KNOWLEDGE ? The comments made by the "EDITORS" make me wonder if many are nothing more than Harley Davidson "snobs".From the opening statement that has been added, to all the "editors" comments makes it clear that you do not really want anyone elses opinion. You should then just make this area unaccessable to the users of this site as it will and has made a bad impression about this site as a way to create and find information.

Happy bigoted editing !! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.87.152.230 (talk • contribs). — 71.87.152.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Exactly. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, that is a compendium of existing knowledge; not a vehicle used to make something known. - Mike Rosoft 23:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete insufficiently sourced neologism.01:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "Alternative" is "Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems" and "Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream" Dictionary.com Alternative Cruisers would thus be motorcycles that are not part of the mainstream brands everyone thinks of when you think of a motorcycle. Having a page for "Alternative Cruisers" would be beneficial as a source of knowledge for the general public who are not familiar with the alternatives. I understand that the reason you are requesting deletion of "Alternative Cruisers" is because there are not enough hits on a google search. However, as more and more people look into other options for motorcycles, "alternative cruisers" will become a more popular search. As an information resource, I would think Wikipedia would want to be the first to have this information available. In response to your quote, "it seems as if users want to use Wikipedia as a portal for knowledge creation, which isn't the purpose of wikipedia." This is not a "creation of knowledge." The knowledge already exists. It is just not readily available on the internet. Wikipedia can change that. In response to the quote, "If a manufacturer is notable, there is nothing preventing an article about that manufacturer, which may be linked from appropriate motorcycle-related articles. Creating an article that is basically "motorcycle brands you may not have heard of" and dressing it up with a name like "alternative cruisers" is promotional, which falls under our definition of WP:SPAM." This is a discriminatory statement. If you put brand names in your pages then ALL brands should be allowed. The fact whether or not they are notable is irrelevant. It is either considered Spam or not. Under your topic on Motorcycles you include many brand names including Harley, Honda, Suzuki, BMW, etc. Is that not spam? It is a list of motorcycle brands. Wikipedia needs to keep up with the trends. According to an article on TheAutoChannel.com, ""Motorcycles and scooters are simply better than ever, in performance, style and variety, and still very affordable," he said. "The latest Cycle World Buyer's Guide lists more than 400 models. And it's not just sportbikes and cruisers and touring bikes. There are emerging niches between these broad categories, appealing to a wider array of personal taste in bikes. There's a fun little $3,000 sportbike that gets 74 miles per gallon. There are beautiful big cruisers that cost $12,000 or less. There are many desirable bikes at these prices and beyond that Americans aspire to own and enjoy." One of these "emerging niches" are "Alternative Cruisers." I implore Wikipedia to keep up with the trend and not get left behind. Muriel Russo

Muriel Russo, I'm sorry that you do not understand. Wikipedia has a responsibility to its own policies, not to "keeping up with the trend" or allowing non-notable material simply out of some fairness guideline (we do not have a fairness guideline). We only allow notable topics in the encyclopedia (guideline), and notability must be verifiable (policy) through reliable sources. A few google results does not meet these guidelines. All you've done is present evidence that there are lesser-known manufacturers of bikes, but you have not presented anything that verifably proves that they are known as "alternative cruisers" generally or that this is a meaningful classification for any type of vehicle or product. We are not objecting to the brands listed in the article, we are objecting to the fanciful grouping of them, apparently for promotional purposes. We are not a webhost for essays or would-be magazine articles. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is inherently POV. -- Whpq 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's not notable and the definition too vague. --Tunheim 22:29, 8 February 2007 (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.