Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha YB 100


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yamaha YB 100

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PRODUCT. There's just barely enough sources to verify that this motorcycle exists (e.g. ), but nowhere near enough to verify that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Per several previous AfD discussions, even motor vehicles must meet notability requirements to have separate articles about them, and per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:PRODUCT & WP:CATALOGUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This book search shows that this bike was reviewed in quite a few publications, and also that it was for a few years the top-selling motorcycle in Pakistan. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewed? "For any YB 100 YAMAHA * Motorcycle you buy, you GET a FREE solid crash helmet". Those hits are advertisements. This is passing mention on a single table of a book about the motorcycle industry. The claim that it was the top selling bike in Pakistan? You can tell it's an advertisement too because the snippet view shows the same text at least twice in the volume of 1982 magazine issues. We don't even know which advertiser is making the claim -- a local dealer, an importer, the manufacturer. In any case, not an independent source, and not even a source we can identify. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Per nom. Completely unreferenced and no obvious WP:RS telling us that it was ever notable. I tried to find if it was a top seller in Pakistan but could get nothing.  Doesn't mean it can't be found, but absent that, it is a delete. Britishfinance (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably notable, as there's an Owners Workshop Manual and a mention in The Encyclopedia of Motorcycles, Volume 5. Peter James (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an owners manual for every single class of Yamaha motorbike; don't think listing in a directory of motorbicycles is WP:GNG. We know it existed, we just can't find evidence that it was ever a notable product. Britishfinance (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of these Haynes manuals are produced in a near-machine like fashion, since many of these bikes are parts bin specials assembled out of common components. The documentation is often produced via search-and-replace. Passing mention in a book like The Encyclopedia of Motorcycles is merely evidence of existence, not notability. The problem with maintaining separate pages for every motorcycle that meets such meager criteria is that it opens the door for hundreds and hundreds of such "articles" consisting of nothing but "The Yamaha YB 100 is a motorcycle manufactured in Japan by the Yamaha Motor Corporation. It is a small, naked bike with a top speed of 130 km/h, and an engine displacement of 97 cm". And actually the second sentence is an unverified and unverifiable performance claim. It's equivalent to a bio for every college athlete whose name was recorded on a roster, or every book we can verify was ever published, even if it was never reviewed or won any accolades. We'd have hundreds of thousands of such permastubs, and we'd never find anything to say about them. We have to draw the line somewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2019 (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.