Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubular tyres


 * 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. John254 00:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tubular tyres

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dictionary definition, merge to other articles Madcoverboy (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- merge if possible, but it doesn't seem likely that it's necessary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- No need to merge. Tubular tyres are no more related to bicycles as they are to other types of ground vehicles.  Redirect to Tire, if anything. --Millbrooky (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Per comment below, it seems I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll abstain from this vote, then. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources indicate that the term is associated almost exclusively with bicycles, especially racers. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There is much to be said about this topic as there are numerous sources including a complete book.  The dicdef argument fails immediately - what we have here is a stub. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've seen nominations like this before. Common objects articles that are still in the stub stages and a misguided user believes the topic is un-encyclopedic because so far they see only a "definition."  Not only does its commonness make it encyclopedic (can easily be expanded to its history and variations plus many other details), but as Colonel Warden pointed out, it's the subject of secondary coverage included an whole book, the primary criteria of WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. It's a thing not a definition. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Hard to believe someone would write a whole book about a type of tyre but there we are. harris 578 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 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.