Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShifCustom

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. Sources as they are are sufficiently refuted and since better sources have not been produced the outcome is clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShifCustom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable motorcycle workshop per GNG and NCORP. Sources are mostly non-independent or unreliable, and what's more important, they are far from being able to support any claims of notability. This is just an ad-like article for a run-of-the-mill bike shop. PK650 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Against The list of awards indicates notability. All sources of the article are independent of its object. -- Maksim L. (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You do realize that all citations link to blogs, press releases or the very same "award" websites, right? Also, none of the awards have a Wikipedia article, which is usually a fair enough indication that they're not notable. Note that Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. This criterion has not been met. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You doubt the credibility of the World Championship of Custom Bike Building or Motor Bike Expo (:it) or Germany's Custombike (:de) or other awards in the industry? No links to releases published by the subject. There are links to releases of events where the subject participated among others. The "blog" is owned by Cyril Huze (:nl), a reputable industry competitor to the subject. Cyril writes not about the subject, but about projects built by the subject, which is used in the article. Links to national-level media — sb.by and kp.by (the largest newspapers), awb.by (largest auto-moto newspaper), tut.by and onliner.by (largest online media) of the subject's country of residence. These media do not briefly mention, but large publications. There is a link to a paper publication (Uli [Ulrich Peter] Cloesen[1]) where the subject is described among others in the industry. There is also material published by the Belarusian Television and Radio Company, but giving the video as a source is not a tradition. --Maksim L. (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt the notability of a bike workshop whose only claim to notability is having achieved 10th place in the 2016 Freestyle Class Results of the WMD. The appears clearly non-notable, as there is simply no significant coverage about it. Having dozens of poor quality links that only point to specific events serves no purpose besides confirming this should be deleted. Releases are worthless when it concerns notability, especially event listings where they've attended. This is unless you can provide a series of reliable sources (of which I found none), of course. Are you in any way associated with the company? Best, PK650 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources comply with the terms GNG. I am not. The question is incorrect. Maksim L. (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't follow your reply above. For your reference, the general notability guideline is a test to gauge whether a topic warrants an article. It states topics need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant means the coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Reliable means "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability"; this usually translates as sources which have attributable bylines, an editorial process behind it, and that are held to be accurate in their usual coverage as seen by third parties. There is a lot more to this last point, so I recommend you read WP:RS in detail as suggested previously. Also, continuing with the GNG, sources should be secondary and independent. Finally, and most importantly, coverage does not guarantee an article for the topic. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no point discussing your assessment of the sources used. What to do in this case explains WP:ARTN (see also WP:NEXIST). The terms of the WP:GNG are not required from the content of the article, only to its subject (WP:CONTN). So, not the sources, but the notability of the subject should be discussed. The significance of the subject is not based on news. Notability for over 13 years. The subject has been repeatedly evaluated by industry professionals. So, the subject will remain in the history of the industry, his notability is not temporary. Notability is not local - USA, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Russia, Hungary and others - so, the coverage of notability is significant. There is no problem verifying information. This complies with the terms of the WP:GNG, even if someone considers all sources used to be unreliabled. --Maksim L. (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources cited fail to meet the basic test of notability for an organization. Glendoremus (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2020 (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.