Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bike-pure


 * 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   Speedy Delete (G11). Alexf42 13:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bike-pure

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

No matter how I spell it (BikePure, Bike-pure, Bike-Pure, etc) I can't find anything that makes this organisation appear notable.   SIS   14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)    SIS   14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bike-Pure I, as a new user to Wikipedia and surprised and delighted that someone read the article, regardless of its nature. Could you please assist; Advice on how I could improve the entry would be gratefully received. Bike-Pure is a just, independant organisation which  will hopefully assist in eliminating Drugs from Professional cycling.

Currently they have 142 of the 701 top level riders signed up. A long way to go, but everyone (690 members in 12 countries) is doing it free and out of love for their sport. Thanks.--Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylesrants (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment above and content of article shows WP:OWN, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:ADVERT vios. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: A non-notable organization. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11) — You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam. Did I also mention conflict of interest, as well? MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is trying to end drug taking in sport, and identifying the cheats not a noble cause? What size do we need to grow to before becoming notable? --Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't care if it's a noble cause or how big it is, it matters about notability. See WP:CORP. You need to add reliable sources that show notability. Your article is also an advertisement because you are involved with the organization. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The original author, Mylesrants deleted this section from the AFD page. I have reverted and warned him on his usertalk page that he will be blocked if he vandalises like this again.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for (obviously) annoying anyone. I didn't know the deletion was incorrect as it does "edit from this point" We have 13,210 members. All very much care to the significance of the body.--Mylesrants (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is judging the organization, it is just Wikipedia has thousands of new articles each day. 10% are pure vandalism, about 1/2 of the rest are improper.  There are rules and policies that we all follow.  Not every company (no matter how worthwhile their goals) has an article here.  All the talk of "notability" and such are being compared to the rules here, not in the real world.  Oh, and be careful when deleting and editing.  Deleting an article off of AFD (or a speedy tag) when you are the author tends to make those of us that work hard to clean the place up get very snippy.  And heavy handed.   P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that this article should be deleted per WP:SNOW. It's obiously going to be deleted because it's an advertisement for a non-notable organization. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

has anyone any advice for the retention of the organisations entry? assistance would be much appreciated--Mylesrants (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mylesrants, the mere fact that you are employed by this company and have made an article promoting it is a violation of WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mylesrants, you need to demonstrate the notability of this subject using independent third-party sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand: you need newspaper articles that talk about the organization, reputable websites (not blogs) that do the same.  You have to cite this in the article.  Wikipedia is pretty cut and dry, it doesn't matter how big the organization is, or how nice the goals, or how true the statements are.  I mean it, those are meaningless here.  All that matters to keep an article here is that the subject matter is 1.  Notable (read wp:n to see what that means) and 2. Verfiable (wp:v) using 3. Reliable sources.(wp:rs).  Most of the other issues can be dealt with or fixed.  Here, notability means that the media is talking about you, or you have done something so worthwhile, it affected a lot of people.  Citations just prove it.  Find an article about a similar organization, one that is written well (ie: no major tags, 1 year old or more) and see what they did RIGHT.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And to add, study Notability (organizations and companies).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per MuZemike --Fireaxe888 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2008 (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.