Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raleigh Grifter


 * 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 keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:GNG. Consensus was also that per WP:NOTCLEANUP, the article can stay. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Raleigh Grifter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Came here from this Help Desk request to delete the page. The request is not reasonable, but I found no sources online so WP:GNG applies.

I am somewhat annoyed because I can find circumstancial evidence that it was somewhat known in the UK, but nothing allowing proper sourcing. For instance this Guardian gallery from 2008 about a local journal says Andy Burnham (...) sold his Raleigh Grifter though the Journal’s classified section (...). It is a passing mention so worth nothing for notability, but the reader is apparently expected to know what a "Raleigh Grifter" is. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have added a couple of basic references, but see the nominator's point that there is a shortage of solid information, despite lots of Pinterest / Ebay / childhood memorabilia sites covering this. And a lot of the article detail (e.g. malfunctioning gears) feels like WP:OR needing sourcing. If or any other user has concerns about factual accuracy in an article, Talk:Raleigh Grifter is a good place to raise these and develop a better article. (Alternatively, a massively pruned text could be merged into the article about the manufacturer, at the end of the Raleigh_Bicycle_Company section.) AllyD (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete: The article written is purely fictious and is responsible for spreading false information during its time on the net. As a Encyclopedia, surely information needs to be sourced and referenced correctly? The two added sources are not useable as the first is a picture of a Raleigh Grifter, and it's incorrectly anotated. The second source is a magazine article and it doesn't even mention the Raleigh Grifter? The article written also offends Raleigh Grifter enthusiasts, as the article refers to the Grifter and a bridge between the Raleigh Chopper and the BMX?? Wrong too. It insults the Grifter by referring to it as "Its frame was very similar to the Raleigh Twenty Shopper bicycle, but with a front triangle which resembled an upside down Chopper frame." The rest of the article is also wrong on dates, production models, colours and incorrect terminology. It is guess work at its best and it really does need to be deleted. It's also worth pointing out that the Raleigh Grifter was made by Raleigh of England, Nottingham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raleigh Grifter Forum (talk • contribs) BLOCKED. Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Section 3.3.3 of the second reference, entitled "First response to BMX" begins "The next follow-up to the Chopper was the Grifter, launched three years later, in June 1976...". AllyD (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh... ONE reference to the word Grifter. Still not a valid referenced source thou is it? BLOCKED. Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP it existed, Cycling Weekly. The article needs a trim. But it also needs to stay. WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE. Instead of deletion there can also be a merge discussion with a likely target of Raleigh Bicycle Company Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't see the delete rationale here at all. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My Google-fu was weak: I searched for "Raleigh Grifter" but this excludes sources that talk about the "Grifter" in the context of Raleigh bikes. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nom changing to keep: looking at the presented sources, I think the DK book plus plus  makes it a pass for WP:PRODUCT (a merge would be unwieldy).  (OTOH the cyclingweekly source is an ultra-passing mention: The brand is as icon of British engineering, widely known for the glory days of the 1900s which saw it produce bikes like the children’s Chopper and Grifter, plus the Burner BMX bike. and the bike is nowhere discussed later on).  Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SKCRIT is met: withdrawal of nomination. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I could not close as SK because it requires that no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Maybe someone could WP:IAR-SK anyway but I would advise against it; if you read 's post beyond the ranting thesaurus, it actually contains a policy-compliant argument (summary: "WP:GNG is not met due to lack of sources other than passing mentions, making it impossible to write a WP:V-compliant article"). Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, and also noting that when Raleigh was sold to Accell in 2012, The Daily Telegraph listed (and photographed) the Grifter and the Chopper, as two of Raleigh's most iconic bikes. . Britishfinance (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I am sorry to say that i agree with the complaint on this. The article is false and still no usable references that support it staying. All i can see are references to the company that built the bike. There's NO supporting references to the history of the bike e.g. Models, foreign market models, According to the article there's only MK1 and Mk2's Other models that are not Mk2's are grouped with Mk2's. The article needs to be rewritten and correctly sourced. WP:GNG Cotterpins (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)  — Cotterpins (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (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.