Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZR250


 * 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. The article subjects are found to lack notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yamaha FZR250

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient sources 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.".This group of Japanese 4-cylinder, 250 cc four stroke motorcycles, including the FZR250, Honda CBR250, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-2R, Suzuki GSX-R250, Suzuki GSX250FX, Kawasaki Balius, and Yamaha FZX250 have hung around with notability questions for 5+ years. We have passing mention in sources like a 200-word Cycle World (August 1991, p.39) sidebar that verifies only that a bike exists, but tells us virtually nothing about it. Without sources to base the content on, we have nothing but original research and questionable info cribbed from fansites and forums. These bikes have been a subject of fascination, no doubt, but the existence of these Wikipedia articles implies a level of reliability to the data that is unjustified. Better readers should google this information in a forum post, or personal we page and caveat emptor.It looks to many editors that our policy is to create one article per motorcycle ever made, and it's understandable why you would think that. has said "Per long-standing WP:CONSENSUS, individual models of motor vehicles are notable provided they meet WP:V." I'm not sure if they still feel that way, but it is a reasonable point of view. The problem is I can't find any basis in policy or guidelines for that, and the problems it creates -- having many motorcycle articles with zero reliable sources -- are best solved by either deleting or redirecting to List of Yamaha motorcycles etc.My previous search for AfD consensus on this issue is at Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700, where from what I can tell, motorcycles must meet WP:GNG just as much as a toaster or hamburger stand, i.e. WP:PRODUCT. If not, how would that work, exactly?By the way, a few years ago Motorcycle Consumer News wrote a long feature about the Japanese graduated licensing system that was responsible for the existence of these 33kW-limited learner bikes. That subject, the licensing scheme and its effect on JDM motorcycles, would be a good article topic, though again with woefully little reliable information about the actual bikes themselves. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for reasons above:
 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all 6 - I agree with the nominator. This seems like a textbook case of WP:PRODUCT. There's no significant coverage of these models, and the parent company page for the four motorcycle manufacturers are not nearly long enough to justify splitting off for an individual page. They can be adequately covered in those pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm pretty sure the "make+model=notable" is a case of WP:EDITCONSENSUS as opposed to anything written down. However, I'm not sure how applicable it would be to motorcycles - they're a bit out of my experience area and, while Yamaha certainly doesn't qualify as such, are a lot easier for "one guy in a garage" to churn out a few for his buddies, as opposed to an automobile, so... No opinion on these, although I will note that they should probably pass GNG, but WP:TNT until proven may be a reasonable option. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all at best and move this content elsewhere if needed as the current articles seem questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all I agree with the reasons listed above, so I believe these articles should be deleted.Will211 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all I have nothing particular to add to what the nominator and Bushranger wrote above. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm pretty sure the "make+model=notable" is a case of WP:EDITCONSENSUS as opposed to anything written down. However, I'm not sure how applicable it would be to motorcycles - they're a bit out of my experience area and, while Yamaha certainly doesn't qualify as such, are a lot easier for "one guy in a garage" to churn out a few for his buddies, as opposed to an automobile, so... No opinion on these, although I will note that they should probably pass GNG, but WP:TNT until proven may be a reasonable option. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all at best and move this content elsewhere if needed as the current articles seem questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all I agree with the reasons listed above, so I believe these articles should be deleted.Will211 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all I have nothing particular to add to what the nominator and Bushranger wrote above. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:02, 11 February 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.