Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuki GSX250FX


 * 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. Only the Suzuki; no consensus about the Honda.  Sandstein  16:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Suzuki GSX250FX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete both Honda CB250F and Suzuki GSX250FX because no sources exist to meet notability guidelines, per WP:PRODUCT: "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." These two articles are exactly the same as the 6 deleted in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZR250 and should be deleted for the reasons explained there. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (only Suzuki) The Honda article contains deep, complete and unique information for the product, and is not a stub. The Suzuki is a perma-stub, because it's essentially an alternate name for a product whose page does not exist. Jergling (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the ITSUSEFUL fallacy. All of the prose in the Honda article comes from unreliable, self-published fansites like hondahornet.co.uk, or is just original research. Subtract that and you have less than a stub. The rest of the article is statistics copied from Honda press releases. And the product is still non-notable, even if we could trust the information we have. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We have articles for every vehicle under the sun, and I believe technical specifications are always worth the bits it takes to host them. Consumer vehicles are necessarily sold in such large quantities that it's pretty hard to call them non-notable; consider that we have an article for literally every phone Nokia has ever made. Furthermore, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a fallacy - it's a laconic response to avoid when making Keep/Delete votes. I explained exactly why I believe the article should stand (It's deep, complete information about a unique product). As someone who's currently shopping for a motorcycle, Wikipedia's consistency and availability of specs has been an invaluable tool for me, as it was when I was looking for a phone before that, and a car before that. Jergling (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is quite easy to call many models of motorcycles non-notable based the simple fact that zero reliable sources spilled a drop of ink over them. There's no way out of that paradox: saying "of course it's notable!" begs the question. If it's so notable, where is the coverage? If we kept an article for the sake of the list of technical specs, that would violate the policies WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Keeping an article to maintain Wikipedia's usefulness as a shopping guide would violate the policy WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Many other sites are better suited to that job, like bikez.com, motorcyclespecs.co.za, WikiBooks, and so on. If we accepted the notability of a motorcycle model simply because it exists, that would violate the guideline notability requires verifiable evidence.It is not true that every model of motorcycle ever made "necessarily" sold in large numbers. Many didn't sell at all. We have no evidence that the Honda CB250F sold much at all, even if sales numbers alone were evidence of notability. We'd have a better argument to write an article about every coffee maker or lawn mower ever made, since those sell in vastly higher volumes than motorcycles.I know it looks like Wikipedia is supposed to have an article about each model of bike; I used to think that too. I don't blame anyone for that assumption, and that's why this issue keeps coming back to be re-argued.The other stuff exists argument about Nokia phones is not a reason to keep Honda CB250F, it's a reason to delete the non-notable phones articles.We have deleted many motorcycle model articles for lack of notability. Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700 was the last time we discussed the inherent notability of motorcycles, and I couldn't find a single AfD discussion where a motorcycle article was kept only because the model existed. They were kept due to evidence of notability. Many were deleted in spite of some editors saying we must have an article on ever model of bike. It always comes back to WP:PRODUCT and WP:NRVE. It doesn't matter if it's a motorcycle or a ballpoint pen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:09, 12 August 2016 (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.