Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sideways bike (2nd nomination)


 * 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. per the sources found by Atmoz (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sideways_bike
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I created this article over a year ago and since then no developments have occurred relating to the production of the Sideways bike. Therefore I propose that the page be removed until the bike is actually available to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquimds (talk • contribs) 2008/11/06 21:47:36
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the fact that it hasn't become commercially available means the article isn't encyclopedic. It is notable as the single documented example of a two-wheel steered bike. If there are others, perhaps this could/should be generalized/renamed to "two-wheel steered bicycle". For anyone turning to wikipedia to learn about bike variations, this is as useful as the Monowheel article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a flash in the pan. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I expect a lot of people to adopt sideways bike riding. This seems like such a fantastically bad bad ass idea, I can't imagine it's not notable. Heck there's a photo of the guy riding the thing!  This is one of my favorite Wikipedia articles and I think it should be brought up to the highest standards so it can be shared. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of independent secondary sources covering this topic.      - Atmoz (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Atmoz on sources and quite interesting too. Article does need some better referencing. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added the links that Atmoz provided to the External links section of the article, for the cases where they weren't already there.  The article seems exactly like the sort of thing that Wikipedia covers and other websites do not; that no one has taken existing sources and improved the article is a unfortunate, but not a reason to delete it.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (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.