Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrick 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Warrick cycles

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

Probably factually correct, but sources fail WP:RS. I'm not familiar with the company, and I am a cyclist and live in the town where it apparently was founded, but that does not mean it's nonsense, only that it's not well known. Speedy requested under A7, but notability is clearly asserted; if that could be supported form reliable sources then fine but there are a total of eight Google hits of whihc two are Wikipedia so I don't hold out much hope. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - only a handful of google results suggests this isn't a notable subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see anything unreliable about the main source quoted. Long-defunct companies are unlikely to generate many Google hits, but that doesn't mean they are not notable. . . Rcawsey (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Rcawset. Also, Google scholar search adding the word Reading turned up .Vulture19 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Little-known, but historical. WP can afford the space for this type of item. Collect (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2009 (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.