Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moto Roma Virage


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Moto Roma Virage

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. It's hard to find evidence Moto Roma even exists, let alone enough to satisfy WP:COMPANY or WP:PRODUCT. Most likely the Moto Roma Mirage was the name that some nearly anonymous Chinese knock-off bike was marketed under in come countries, although without good sources even that can't be verified. Dbratland (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * weak keep. At least this page and Moto-roma roadrunner show that the company exists. Google shows also some hits for the Virage model, mainly vending offers. --Cyfal (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just found that. --Cyfal (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, those links were the only (weak) evidence I found that they exist. But in what sense do these links meet the criteria of Notability (organizations and companies)? Existence is a start, but we don't make a page for every company. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability," etc. --Dbratland (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. This is a strange thing. There aren't that many of those companies, so that suggests that the ones that are there are probably notable--but there isn't a damn thing on this company and these bikes! Nothing useful in Google News, and Google Books does not produce any reviews in magazines either. Now, it is entirely possible that there is coverage, just not online: the motorcycle magazines I used to read aren't online. Still, it's weird, especially since the sell trail bikes for under E 1000. How about some boldness: I'm going to create Moto Roma and propose that the closing admin and redirect the stub thattaway. As things stand right now, the articles ought to be deleted, and the company itself doesn't stand much change, but who knows. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this, Moto Roma is nothing but a brand used in the UK for Zongshen motorcycles -- which, if true, would mean that it is incorrect to have said that Moto Roma is a Chinese motorcycle manufacturer. Lacking any good sources, I don't understand why anyone would take one unsourced page that fails the notability guidelines, and go and create yet another page with zero sources which also fails the notability guidelines. This seems to have made a bad situation worse. --Dbratland (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the friendly comment. It's not a bad situation, and it's not made any worse. (An unreferenced article! the end of the world??) If it is true that it's another name for Zongshen, then merge and redirect it to that article! "I don't understand why anyone..."--well, you're sitting here with an AfD for over a week now, and you have yet to generate a 'delete'. So instead of criticizing me for doing something useful, go and do something yourself: withdraw the nomination, merge and redirect the article to Moto Roma, and then figure out if you want to merge and redirect to Zongshen--and if that's what you think is right, be bold and just do it. Leave the redirects instead of asking for deletion, since they may well be useful search terms. You could have taken care of all of this in as much time as it took you to compose this AfD, and you can take care of it in the next two minutes--that's all it takes. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Sorry, but I'd rather see Wikipedia say nothing at all than perpetuate guesses, hearsay and misconceptions. The fact is that nobody knows for sure what Moto Roma actually is, and the best way to express that fact would be to delete Moto Roma Virage and Moto Roma. The existence of these pages misleads readers. Spreading rumor, conjecture and hearsay is what the entire rest of the Internet is there for; Wikpedia should aspire to be just slightly better than that. --Dbratland (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about redirects here. A redirect is not a rumor, it's a search term. I could vote 'keep' just to be an ass and your AfD would go nowhere, and the rumor, conjecture, and hearsay would remain. Instead, I offered you an easy way to take care of your problem, which is perfectly in keeping with our policy. But have it your way. Merge and redirect to Moto Roma. Make and model seem to exist and redirects for individual models to the parent company are acceptable, and given the relative scarcity of motorcycle brands, I'm going to assume some measure of notability, to the point where I want the search term to continue to exist. If nominator wants to take issue with the primary point, then nominate the redirect target. What would be appreciated more is if nominator would attempt to write a sentence or two into Moto Roma or Zongshen to explain the relationship--that would be a genuine effort to improve the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't my AfD, and it isn't my problem. The AfD, and any problem if there is one, belong to Wikipedia and I'm only contributing my opinion in order to help other editors work through the process to come to a reasonable conclusion.I honestly don't know if redirects ought to be allowed to meet a lower standard than WP:GNG. Judging by Redirect and the principles at Redirects for discussion, a user whose search led them from Moto Roma to Zongshen is going to be baffled as to why, which would fail the goal of redirects. Unless we add an explanation to Zongshen based on guesswork, since we lack a reliable source which would let us explain factually what the relationship between the two is. So with redirects to Zongshen, we are making uncited assertions of fact about Moto Roma, but by deleting the pages, we explicitly say we don't know. And I say we don't know. And of course, if good sources ever to turn up, they can be cited, and the pages can be recreated if needed.If there are flaws in my reasoning that I'm not seeing, I'm sure at some point sooner or later other editors will help sort it out. --Dbratland (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I agree with Dbratland. Do not redirect unless a reliable source confirms that Moto Roma is a Zongshen brand. Pburka (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2011 (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.