Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beixo

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. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beixo

Advertisement for duch bicyle company. Google hits are scarce (ok, actually, there are lots of hits, but few referring to bicycles). Notability of company is not established, fails WP:CORP, no reliable sources are given in the article, and I doubt many could be found. Prodded, prod removed by author. Delete --Huon 12:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The additional content added after the prod is duplicated in the shaft driven and folding bicycle pages. If it is noteworthy as a folding shaft driven bicycle it could be mentioned in one or both of those articles, but there is not enough here to support its own article. Yomangani 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm quite surprised by this. The Strida entry was an example. Tell me what's the difference in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.135.105 (talk • contribs)

Nothing as far as I can see, I'll put the Strida article up for deletion too. Yomangani 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I added more text and content today so the entry is not only about the folding bike. andre_rijn

Comment - this is now a disambiguation page for 3 topics which don't have their own articles. Yomangani 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I doubt any of the three topics' notability. The "Ancient word for kiss in Portuguese" violates WP:WINAD. The observatory, although my personal favourite, does not seem notable either, unless there were made some significant discoveries I'm not aware of. As to the comparison with Strida, that article also has a problem with sources. But since the number of Google hits is vastly greater, probably some could be found. If not, I'll follow Yomangani's lead and endorse Strida's deletion, too. In general, the existence of other bad articles should never be construed to allow the existence of one more bad article. --Huon 09:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. So "beixo" can mean a kiss, a bike, an observatory, a village, or the moon, depending on what language one is speaking. I have no problem with that, but why must we document it on wikipedia? And why, for heavens sake, would we document it on the English Wikipedia when the word doesn't mean anything at all in English? Put it on the Portugese wikipedia, or the Tayo Beixo wikipedia once those original inhabitants of Venezuela get around to setting one up (if there are any original inhabitants left). In the meantime, delete it from here. --technopilgrim 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Quite hard for a starting organisation to get an entry here when you keep saying: "Google hits are scarce". Right, but deleting will not help on this one. If a same article, but with more hits on Google can remain, I think that's strange. andre_rijn

Comment The preceding comment was actually made by User:82.93.135.105 (who may or may not be User:andre_rijn, but if he is, it's his second "keep")). Regarding its content: Yes, a "starting organisation" does not deserve a Wikipedia entry until it has managed to become notable. The "same article" is already proposed for deletion, and unless someone turns its greater number of Google hits into some reliable sources, I doubt it's going to survive long. --Huon 09:11, 31 July 2006 (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.