Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of motorized bicycles

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 of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of motorized bicycles

This is yet another POV fork attempt by CyclePat. Apparently, the CCM light delivery safety bike picture is being taken off of the main motorized bicycle article, so now pat has created this fork, which has absolutely no purpose. The motorized bicycle topic really only needs one article, but we have 2 now with the timeline article (also created as a fork) and now this. Please delete it. Absolutely no reason for it. The problem if we let this in is that then Pat is going to create more forks. He's been threatening to do it for awhile now. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • comment: This is not a POV fork. This analisys is based on the precedence from the similar page titled: gallery of motorcycle trikes. Yes! CCM light delivery can be found at CCM (bicycle manufacturer). Precendence sugest that we should at least include the name of an item to avoid a POV. This being said. Woohookitty's analisys needs some reviewing. The alleged concensus to remove the picture of CCM picture of the article motorized bicycle has not been proven. What will happen when others attempt to place the many thousands of different model electric bicycles on this page. Either we put them in the [[category:motorized bicycle]]? As for the assumption that timeline of motorized bicycle history is a fork, this article has been previously nominated for deletion and failed to be accepted for deletion. We discussed this issue. A precedence exist such as within the article of bicycle that show that a fork for the history is possible. The problem is if we don't let this in our article will be limited to one POV of 2 or 3 people that seem to be ganged up together and offended by my manerism. (AfD? has even used some offencive language) As for threathening to do fork I can not understand where he would get such an idea. This is pure "hear say..." I believe these users are more worried about the possible changes that are currently happening and that some of these fact may contradict their or even our "expert" knowlege. --CylePat 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not exactly sure what you are talking about. I've never even *seen* a motorized bicycle. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't understand, aren't you, Woohookitty, the one who started the article motorized bicycle. Aren't you the person that uploaded the picture Image:Motorbike2.jpg? How could you have never seen a motorized bicycle? User:CyclePat 13:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Pat, I believe WHK got the idea from here, where you said "Oh! Now I remember. What about a list of motorized bicycle? That could be subdivided into addition kits, and manufactured" in response to the removal of the CCM from the timeline.
The idea that the CCM was removed by consensus is dotted around the talk pages of the two articles. You have more than once used the analogy of the Toyota Prius. It is a good one: if the CCM were among the first vehicles of its class manufactured by manufacturer whose name is a household word on every continent, the bike would indeed merit inclusion in the articles on the motorized bicycle. But it is neither, as you have acknowledged elsewhere.
Your single-minded determination to raise the profile of this machine shows admirable enthusiasm, but as I thought you understood by now the purpose of these articles is to document the significant, not to elevate that which individual editors admire. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
comment:No, you see, you're putting words in my mouth again. And you are avoiding the main subject wich is the deletion of this "entire" article. If you have POV issue (which I apparently have when you remove this item) I sugest we move the discussion to the appropriate place. But to argue about the CCM, that talk page does not show any conclusive evidence of concensus. The idea that an item needs to be "Popular" is not a very sound argument for dis-inclusion into an article. I'm sure there are some un-popular and much more contreversial subjects on wikipedia. A question for you. If you where working on the article of telephone, would you not include a picture of a 1932 telephone into the article? If that telephone was a rare one, wouldn't it be even more intriguing to add at "least" a little sentence on it. (for example: what if, I dunno, Avro built a rare telephone and it was suddenly removed from the market. It's popularity might not be extreme, it's alleged significance might not be "comprehensible," however this telephone did exist. (I strongly believe a quick blurb should be included in the article... where is another question, which obviously seems to offuscate you via your literally bolded comments from Talk:Motorized bicycle#1st POV (THE CCM Pixie bicycle motor) that was recently removed stating...
"Pat, HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? What is at issue is not the existence of this bike but its significance." and your comment on User talk:Woohookitty#CyclePat "But Pat wants that f***ing CCM Light Delivery Safety in this article, and he doesn't seem to care how it's done." and further more you go on to critisize my method of work stating "He also has a habit of rewording stuff in incredibly idiosyncratic English." (idiosyncratic meaning "eccentric" or "out of the norm"?) (I would assume my writing skills are out of the norm when you come from a different culture and 80% of the time I use french) (Wiki is an intercultural encyclopedia, and your denial of the relevance of the CCM bicycle is just as offencive to my canadianism and Ottawa culture as much as if you where to deny the fact the hockey is alleged to have originated from Canada.) user:CyclePat 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Pat, your English is idiosyncratic. So is mine. But "attested", for example, is not a word used in everyday discussion by most people - I (usually) manage to keep to everyday vocabulary in articles, that's all I'm saying. And your relentless addition of the CCM bike is a matter of record. The bike has no demonstrable significance to the global development of the motorized bicycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Be it noted that I resisted the temptation to immediately AfD this. It is as Woohookitty says: another WP:FORK. For the record, although the pictures are nice, there are not yet enough to make a decent gallery; there is a Gallery of motorcycle trikes wihch I created as a way of reducing the size and load time of the tricycle article. If we have that many pictures I'd gladly embrace this article, but there is only one picture in here which is not in the parent article, and it's not in there because the machine in question has been removed as being, by common consent, not relevant to the global history of the motorized bicycle. To be honest I thought we had seen the end of this argument, and the sudden re-insertion of the bloody thing with a fork as well is a serious disappointment at this late stage. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there galleries of other things that have been left alone? If so, Keep. At the worst Merge with the article about motorised bicycles, if they dont already exist on that page. Jcuk 23:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! That's the whole point - all but one of them does already exist on that page, the sole exception being the bike which User:CyclePat has been repeatedly inserting and re-inserting against consensus - which is why he created this fork in the first place :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
comment: This Afd can be technical. A precedence is precisely that. It is a previous thing\ occurance that sugests it should be permissible to redo that same or similar thing. We have such a page in regardes to this subject. Meaning yes there are other galleries of other things. See for example gallery of motorcycle trikes. user:CyclePat 12:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, Pat? I created the gallery of motorcycle trikes in order to speed the load time of the tricycle article and to balance up the emphasis between pedal and motorcycle trikes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep: (I guess I should vote hey!) Inherently it may be seen as a creation for a list of photo's of various different motorcycle trikes. Er, Just zi...? Then I created the gallery of motorized bicycle in order to speed the load and to balance up the emphasis of old, older, newer, modern, electric, gas, funny looking, weird looking, rare, common, pedal like, not pedal like (but still), blue, pink, purle, etc... etc... etc... etc.... The gallery says it all because a picture is, I believe, a thousand words. --CylePat 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Userify the one image that isn't already on the page if there's a really strong desire to have it around but I'm not sure I see how having a gallery helps if all but one of the images are in the main article already. I could be confused though. ++Lar 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It already exists in the article for the manufacturer of the bike, which is a great place for it as it fits just nicely. Although apparently they mainly make hockey equipment... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
comment: Image gallery is there to place existing motorized bicycle photo's. There are thousands of "motorized bicycles" that have been manufactured\built. The idea that a page be deleted because of the lack of information that exist within the page is just a stupid as deleting a page because the information in a page is to abundant. Give it some time, I'm sure this page will fill. (I guess we're going to have to do like I did for the timeline for Motorized bicycle history and ask for some external help from some friends from http://www.mopedarmy.com ) Again the idea that a page should be virtually complete before it is even started is a discriminatory opinion on my work method and on the wikipedia process. user:CyclePat 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You will noticed that I have added a new picture to the Gallery of motorized bicycle. For those user that started the page motorized bicycle you will notice it is a perfectly good picture that we used for more than 2 months. Image:Motorbike2.jpg (A motorized bicycle (the motor unit is above the back wheel and appears to eb a friction drive unit). This is an aftermarket conversion.). This picture was recently removed from motorized bicycle article. Seeing as it is inpractical to include too many pictures in the main article of "motorized bicycle," it only makes sense to be able to mention this finely researched and perfectly relevant "machinery" elsewhere. What better way then a gallery which is somewhere quite relevant to the main article. The utility of this gallery page that is currently up dor deletion, is important to the development of the article motorized bicycle and is preceded by the example of gallery of motorcycle trikes. user:CyclePat 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
So that's now two pictures which aren't in the main article. Both of which are, I believe, in other articles as well (unlike the motorcycle trikes). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Pat, calling for meatpuppets is really' bad wikiquette. And discussing it openly is worse. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Call them whatever but I'm sure they will be able to bring some critical comments to the discusion. (You may find the conversation at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/237478/237478/) --CylePat 15:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe they'll upload enought pictures making the above vote for delete futile and insignificant. (Again, this vote is base on the idea that an article should be finished before it's even started) --CylePat 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Seeing there is no proof that this is a POV fork, there should be no problem ignoring this afformentioned "vote" for delete. --CylePat 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
As Guy pointed out earlier, your relentless addition of the CCM bike is a matter of record. I really don't care if you think my contribution is valid or not. That decision is down to the user closing this debate, not you. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another ridiculous and disrespectful POV crusade fomented by CyclePat. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
comment: I still haven't seen any proof that this is a POV crusade. "Au contraire" this is merelly a copy of the precendence that exist with the page called Gallery of motorcycle trikes. If you have an issue with the inclusion of CCM I believe you should bring that up with a user-rfc against me or perhaps within the appropriate POV section. The article is legitimitate. --CylePat 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Pat, but whatever it is, it is not a "copy of the precedence" as above. The Trike article was 50% taken up by the gallery, which unbalanced it and made it achingly slow to load; it also distorted the balance between motor and pedal trikes. But indeed there are other galleries, in fact there's a whole category of them. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: should the deletion of this article occur, unavoidably, this would be a precendence for deleting the article gallery of motorcycle trikes, and other galleries. --CylePat 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment:according to the POV fork... "There is very little that can make a separate article "inherently POV." If the issue is the title, the solution is to rename it to a less improper title. If the issue is the manner in which it was written — be bold in editing it that it may better conform to NPOV. Often a simple renaming and refactoring of a fork article will yield good results, and may satisfy all parties involved. But simplistically calling for its deletion is commonly referred to as "m:deletionism" — a misapplication of deletion process, often to enforce a POV rather than to enforce NPOV, and often to outright negate the work of new contributors. This is a misapplication of deletion powers."
Pat, you are very fond of accusing others of POV. Have you never stopped to think that perhaps it might be possible that it is you who is pushing a POV rather than everybody else? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
comment: Yes! what if these pictures are a POV. I'm assuming that they are motorised bicycles.... but have they trully been defined by "someone" that is non partisan. (ie.: National Post says that Bionx is a motorised bicycle... actually they would probably say it's an electric bicycle but anyway.) I hope you realise that if this gallery is POV because of it's content inherently the content on the main page will also be. However if the pictures are not POV then inherently they should be able to be displayed. The idea that this article be up for deletion is against commen sense. As those that vote delete... I assume this is because you see some sort of POV. Can you explain because right now, I really don' see any logical POV. If there is one, maybe the photos (as afformentioned) and in that case the main article would also be POV, making for the removal of these pictures all together. (wich would be totally unproductive and totally "dense"). --CylePat 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Missing the point again. What is POV is your promotion of this insignificant machine in this and other articles. The bike (and this picture) already has a place in the CCM article, where it belongs. As has been stated more than once, if you want it in this article or the timeline fork you created and from which it was also removed, all you need to do is show its relevance to the global history and development of the motorised bicycle - something you have consistently failed to do. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"Missing the point again." (humm... just that comment seems to lead into your POV that this motorized bicycle is insignificant.) I have neither stated if this CCM bicycle is significant or insignificant. All in all, if what you are saying is true, (that of which you alleged I have POV, I believe you are fighting a useless battle. This is because again I haven't stated the significance or insignificance... it simply is a motorized bicycle, just like African pussy willow is simply a flower (I think, or a bush or something). (asside: It would be somewhat difficult to find non-original research that seems to support most historic significances of our wiki category that "we invented"... and for some reason called "motorized bicycle." A gallery, is worth a million words and doesn't need to elaborate into the historic significance (that of which can be elaborated within it proper article... such as the CCM (bicycle manufacturer)) Now, according to WP:DP#What to do with a problem page/image/category(in "Article is biased or has lots of POV") this the proper step to take if you believe their is a NPOV issue is to to add {{npov}} or {{POV check}} to the article. Again, this does not require a delete. Having this page nominated for deletion, I believe, is a waste of wiki deletion process. Which I believe is somewhere on wiki guidelines.
Now after reading through, the WP:DP (Problems that don't require deletion) I noticed this article could use: {{disputed}}, {{stub}}, arguably (left-wingedly) it could be {{mergeto|article}} and possibly "Annoying user". Under the problems that require deletion I could not find anything.
So let's talk about WP:NPOV even though this should be elsewhere then on this delete page. So, I believe WP:POINT. You apparently have a dispute with the content and with "me", and we have dispute resolution mechanisms for that. This isn't one of them. Finally, WP:NPOV "(Neutral Point Of View) is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views fairly and without bias." So after perusing quickly through the WP:NPOV#What is the neutral point of view? I figured that the issue might be that we are accerting, through inferance from the title, that these are pictures of motorized bicycles... yet according to Wikipedia's policy we are supposed to be "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." (For those of you joining in on the conversation, the reason there is conflicting views is because of the entire subject itself. Already we have had much discussion on what the big difference is between a motorized bicycle and a moped... take a look at those two article and tell me if you can see a difference?) According to WP:NPOV#Making necessary assumptions it is necessary to make some assumption and present some idea for the "enemy". Anyway... the question to ask according to WP:NPOV#How can I tell if my article has a POV? is, "Does the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each?" Humm... I was going to type "and finallly"... Another issue you should look at is WP:NPOV#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. It is my opinion, seeing as you nominated this article for deletion under a spell of rage (afformentioned vulgur language or user:Woohookitty ability to openly state he doesn't like me), that you have done so as a type of punishement or lesson. This goes against WP:NPOV#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.
Finally as for the guidelines from POV forks, this is a gallery of pictures that have an article themself. It is there for easy access so people can say "oh! look this is a motorized bicycle! wow!" and not have to be an expert like you or many others that have commented or edited this article and look around for velosolex or CCM (bicycle manufacturer). And who knows maybe some other expert will come along and add a picture and we will say... "oh my God! We missed that one! That's true it's a motorized bicycle" (ie.: http://www.revopower.com/main.html ) (You know after putting that example done, maybe it's time to start an article for "hub motor" and put that information in there for this example... and at the same time I could start an article on the company!! Would that be a POV fork?) --CylePat 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to do something that's a bit shocking and that is to vote against the grain of some people I consider excellent editors and judges of policy. As of right now, there are seven images in the gallery (including the incredibly-disputed CCM model) and as someone who has absolutely no knowledge of motorized bicycles, it looks perfectly fine. I don't think it matters what the intentions were in creating the article. As it stands now, it's in an acceptable form, and unless someone can explain to me what policy(ies) the article violates WITHOUT taking into consideration any of its background, I say keep. howcheng {chat} 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't hold it against you :-) What frustrates me most of all is that Pat will happily devote masses of energy into saving articles he's forked for his pet bike (see also timeline of motorized bicycle history) while ignoring a load of redlinks on which he could easily write good articles from his known expertise. He does some really good work sometimes, but boy is he single-minded! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:55, 31 December 2005 (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.