Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Cycles


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seven Cycles


This article is blatant free advertising for a private business enterprise. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia--not an online "yellow pages." If allowed to stand, this article opens up the door for free advertising touting the product line of all private business enterprises. It constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Watson (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 07:37:38
 * Creator Comment Seven Cycles clearly meets the criteria for a company to be included in Wikipedia. It has recently appeared in several independent magazine articles, a list of which can be found here: . If citations are a problem I can add them, if wording is the issue it is a wiki and open to anyone to help. Also, it's possibly worth noting that the nominator has (impropery) nominated almost every page i've created for AFD because I nominated an article of his that was deleted as neologism (AFD debate here: ). Goodnightmush 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete unless sourced If there are magazine articles, please add them to the article, for at the moment is has no sources not derived from the business--there well might be, for there ought to be product reviews. Even so, the existing article with the extensive catalog of models is unsuitable. There;s also the problem that the sources would have to indicate that the company was a major manufacturer, either in quantity or in terms of notabliity for special quality or other features. Might be possible--go try. There is no point in talking about personalities, because if the subject can be sown to be notable it will be approved. DGG 08:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add several of the independent sources before the debate ends. Just need to get them together. Might be a day. Goodnightmush 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE I have added numerous links to assert the importance of the subject of the article in the external links at the article. If I had more time I would incorporate them. However, in that section alone they should suffice to close this debate in favor of keep. Here are a few examples: Review of the company in Bicycling Magazine, Bicycling Magazine article about one model, Velonews Article Goodnightmush 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but the article needs a huge clean up. As already mentioned the listing of the entire range is going to leave the article liable to deletion as spam. Nuttah68 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - see: WikiProject Cycling for an earlier dispute about a cycling-related page. We resolved that dispute by trans-wiki'ing the unencyclopedic portions of Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais to Bicycling Wiki. --Teratornis 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - this is simply PR stuff. WikiPedia is not an advertising billboard, and we can't have articles about every company that has ever been mentioned in any magazine. NBeale 10:55, 2 March 2007 (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.