Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossover Flywheel


 * 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 19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Crossover Flywheel

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

non-notable device. The single reliable source about it was nothing more than a local interest story. This device never gained mainstream use, and evidently has not been heard about since. Also obviously promotional, given User:CrossoverFlywheel wrote the article. PROD removed with the argument of "notable as the world's only Ice-skating Skatemill", which I do not buy. Resolute 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject of this article is notable as the as the world's only Ice-skating Skatemill. Although not in general use, the informmation is verifiable and meets the criteria for inclusion. Notability is not temporary. Dolovis (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, makes being the worlds only "ice-skating skatemill" notable? Resolute 21:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Its not the only ice skating treadmill. Its the only one of its kind (ie that you can do crossovers on). There are not multiple reliable references to indicate notability, as such it does not pass WP:GNG. Notability isn't temporary you are right, but it yes yet to show that it has acheived notability. Clearly written as a COI and being that only one local newsbite can be found about it, it appears to fall into the local interest story pile which is not good enough to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Dolovis, seriously; the definition of notability on Wikipedia isn't "It's the only one of its kind" or "I think it's noteworthy." It's whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, [and so is] presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  What links to independent, reliable, third-party, published sources have you found?   Ravenswing  19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Fails WP:COI. This article is spam. Also fails WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – I have put a copy of the image into the rather empty skatemill, but otherwise there is nothing worth keeping as it fails WP:GNG. Bigger digger (talk) 16:18, 22 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.