Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigtoe


 * 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   No Consensus Cheers.  I 'mperator 14:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigtoe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The Guinness Records' "World's Tallest Motorcycle" category no longer exists, having been replaced by "Worlds Tallest Rideable Motorcycle." A different monster bike, smaller taller than "Bigtoe" but presumably rideable, holds the current title. The winner seems to have changed at least once or twice since the Bigtoe page was created, and during that time there was little interest in it on Wikipedia. There is a self-promoting aspect to both the Guinness Records, and the record holders, which suggests that they should provide their own publicity rather than seek it on Wikipedia, unless there exists verifiable evidence of significant public interest outside of Guinness' own publicity, or the publicity created by the record holders. Dbratland (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear notable, only verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable Turbo900 (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep According to the Google books search it held the record for 2 years in a row, 2004 and 2005 entries. That seems notable enough but could be rewritten to describe the bike more. ww2censor (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The noms edit summary reason for deletion on the motorcycle to do page: "nominated Bigtoe for deletion instead of looking for an image" seems completely improper as there are numerous articles, even stubs, without images, and he does not mention this reason here. Very odd indeed. ww2censor (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do a Google book search for "bigtoe" motorcycle, with the quotes, you get 3 hits, 2 are Guinness and 1 is a page that is somewhere between trivial and in-depth. That would make it important enough to be worthy of inclusion in another article but not notable to have its own article. On a regular search I'm not seeing anything in-depth and most of it seems to be levered off Guinness. Drawn Some (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is so odd. I was working on the WikiProject Motorcycling/to do list and I decided to look for images.  The first one on the list is Bigtoe.  I began looking around for an image, and that's when I realized "Bigtoe" is no longer the record holder, and the whole category has changed, and there is little interest in the topic anyway.  Bigtoe's loss of the title has caused hardly a ripple in the motorcycling world.  So I decided that rather than try to hunt down an image for a page nobody seemed to care much about, it would be better just to delete the page.  I merely added a note saying what was up, over on the To Do list.  The fact that an image is missing has nothing to do with why it should be deleted, so I didn't mention it.  I don't understand what is improper.--Dbratland (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It came, we saw, it existed. It had its 15 minutes and is no longer of note. 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). It held the record, and it got press coverage:. Some of the coverage is in passing, but 7 sources along with entries in the 2004 and 2005 Guinness Book of Records makes this bike definitely notable. That said, training wheels on a motorbike? Dude, you're doing it wrong. Fences and windows (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources for notability. That it's a former competitive category not a present one doesn't detract from notability. DGG (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG said it all. If that's not enough, Fences said more. 2 year winner. Sill notable. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:05, 15 May 2009 (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.