Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorcycle oil

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. That is, do not delete; no consensus about a possible merger but that can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle oil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. The entire point of this article is to answer the question "What oil should I buy for my motorcycle?" That is, how do I maintain my motorcycle? Here is some reliable material on motorcycle oil: "Motorcycology", "Why don't we want to use...", "...energy conserving friction modifiers...". According to Chilton's Motorcycle Handbook [1], this is a hotly debated issue with no authoritative answer. If all of the secondary sources only offer how-to instructions, and no encyclopedic content, then there is nothing for Wikipedia to work with. There is a Wikibooks page which can more adequately deal with this, fwiw. Dbratland (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree, dbratland. There are reliable sources discussing this and talking about the difference between motorcycle and automotive oils. That's a sufficient reason to keep- because there is a difference. It may need to be rewritten, but not completely deleted. tedder (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I see as the issue with the existing sources is that they are only writing how-to manuals. Which means to make something encyclopedic out of that source material, the Wikipedia editor has to reframe what the source is saying and change it into something other than what was meant. This would be fine if at least some sources wrote encyclopedic topics, but when the entire article is stitched together from how-to advice reformed into something else, it becomes a problem.

It could be that what we really need is a new article Motorcycle lubrication, that begins with the early rider-operated, total-loss lubrication systems and traces the development since then, while avoiding getting anywhere near discussing what SAE grade or brand or type of oil they need.--Dbratland (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)::[reply]

It's more than a how-to to say "auto oils contain X, moto oils contain Y", especially combined with the mcnews survey of however many years ago. However, you have a point- a "history of motorcycle lubrication" article, probably named what you suggested, would be wise. tedder (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep acceptable start to an article. Manuals for motorcycles are very much more detailed. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to motor oil. This is something of a content fork of a bunch of articles gathered in one place. It seems to me that it would make more sense for an encyclopedia to stress the peculiar requirements of motorcycles in those places. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed above, but lose the OR section on cooling. — Brianhe (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Culling WP:OR out of the article can fix the WP:NOTHOWTO concern. That said, is this a WP:CFORK of motor oil? Maybe. Does it have to be? No. I think this article can be fixed; if someone tries and cannot, that person should propose a merger on the article talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This is something that should be merged with motor oil. South Bay (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.