Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kd50qt-4


 * 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   merge to Zongshen.  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kd50qt-4

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

Not notable. Lacks sources. There are thousands of these motorcycle models such as this one, but the meager information that you can find on web sites typically is devoid of context, and is never from reliable third parties. If you had a source where you could gather up all the various clones made under different names and talk about them as a group, it would be a pretty interesting article. Maybe a good book on the topic will be written some day. Dbratland (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Looks like WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to broader topic per nom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't such an article to merge into. All I was saying is that if secondary sources were some day created (and wouldn't that be great) then a good article could be written.  The only thing it could be merged into is Zongshen, but none of the material in Kd50qt-4 is appropriate for an article about a manufacturer.   And even then, Zongshen itself is a candidate for deletion for the same reasons -- no third party secondary sources, no notability.  Besides their own company website, their biggest claim to fame is that a (very poor) Wikipedia article about them exists.


 * My point was only that I don't want to disparage the Chinese motorcycle industry. I suspect there is a lot of interesting things that could be said, but not much of anyone is saying them, yet.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment This needs to be merged into a wider subject, probably Zongshen, as the beginning of a sereis of paragraphs on theri various models. However, unless a reliable source can be provided for the problems (so that it is quoting fair comment from others), this section must be deleted as a potential commercial libel.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 19 June 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.