Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bike Shaped Object

: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. Courcelles 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

=[[Bike Shaped Object]]=

:{{la|Bike Shaped Object}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Bike Shaped Object}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Bike Shaped Object}})

Non-notable term that fails WP:NEO. None of the references provided even mention the term. Some of the external sources mention it but the only reliable sources just use the word, which is not enough. Some of the other links discuss the term in more detail but they are not reliable sources. D•g Talk to me/What I've done 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Very notable. How can you say BSO is Non-notable? really? have you actually read the article or followed the links? Do not the actions of the UK, US, and french governments mean anything. The fact that the term is plastered all over the internet with about 344,000 Google hits, see here: [http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Bike+Shaped+Object&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=]--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak keep The references don't support the subject... Urban dictionary cannot seriously be considered a reliable source, but the Guardian article in the external links certainly is. If that and other reliable sources can be worked into the main body of text, the article would be fine. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete While this article does have good information on bike recalls, all that information would fit better in separate article(s) as it has nothing to do with the neologism itself. In the ELs, the Guardian article is part of a blog, the BBC news story does not mention the term outside the comments, and all of the other links are blogs. The only inline citation in the first paragraph links to Urban Dictionary which is not a reliable source. --Elassint (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing sufficient to support this subject let alone title. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite an opening sentence implying that this article will be about the phrase "bike shaped object", most of the content is in fact about product recalls. My first thought was that we could rename the article Bicycle recalls in the United States, but the sources don't discuss that as a general topic, so I think an article on it would violate the no original research policy. Information about recalls would be better included in articles on individual models or manufacturers. EALacey (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism that lacks sufficient WP:RS to verify that it meets WP:GNG … also violates WP:NOR. Happy Editing! — {{User|70.21.16.94}} 00:29, 2 November 2010 (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.