Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilcomoto

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 merge to Motocross . MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcomoto

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

Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How it can be non notable is slightly beyond me.. Relating to the wiki article on motocross which was first evolved in Britain, I feel it right that wilcomoto be notable under the "Manufacturers that have ceased production" on that page... Just because something lacks ghits does not make it non notable, the bike has been disgusted many times on forums and other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money97 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll again refer you to WP:COMPANY for what and how to establish Wikipedia based notability-please note that "real world" notability is not the same as Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Although "real world" notability and wiki notabity appear to differ, the use of the Internet I would assume for the majority of people is there main and most common access to information ie wiki... After reading WP:COMPANY I was drawn to "occasional exceptions" WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

I refer you to the facts that the wilcomoto is relevant to the wiki motorcross as it is a british "manufacturers that have ceased production" and the input of the wilcomoto does improve the content of wiki as it has failed to be mentioned prior... It adds information that was previously uninown on wiki. I do have further things to add however I did assume it would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money97 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind removing the deletion notice from the artical and allowing me some time to improve it ? --Money97 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing that this company passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP in any way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- So missing out a part of history because it lacks ghits and or "wiki notability" is achieving what exactly ? Surely that practice is "shaping" history not infant creating a reliable source ? And stating actual history ? The fact that the manufacturer existed is a fact and a fact of historic importance relating to British motorcross. The fact that the motorcycle in question was manufactured in the early eighties, is something I feel should be taken into account as the amount of ghits is likely to be way bellow per apparent criteria. I revert you to "occasional exceptions" WP:IAR " a bike was intact auctioned via brightwells auctioneers, whom managed to locate credible information on the bike in order to value it.

“ Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to be a reliable resource.—Larry Sanger[1] ”

It can only be reliable if its content is true to fact surely ? --Money97 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to answer your question, adding an unverified article reduces the accuracy of Wikipedia and therefore removes its effectiveness as an accurate resource. Just because you say something is true does not make it so. Many people believe the earth is flat, but thankfully Wikipedia requires valid references to support such "facts". I am not saying what you trying to include is not true or accurate, but it requires independent validation to be included in Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Motocross or a new page on motocross machines. This seems to have been reduced to an argument about whether Wilcomoto machines should be mentioned in Wikipedia, which is a diversion. Whilst this is not a topic on which I have personal knowlege, it seems to me that there is sufficient evidence that specialist motocross machines were manufactured under the Wilcomoto name and the facts in the present stub are likely to be correct. The issue here is whether there should be an article on the manufacturer. Whilst I agree that WP:GNG and WP:CORP are often unhelpful where companies outside the US are concerned, and even very large and well known companies can struggle to meet them, it is unlikely that there is much more to be said about Wilcomoto itself which really needs to be in Wikipedia, which does not seek to be a directory of every manufacturing company which ever existed. However, it existed as a marque of specialist motor cycles, and there are several articles on motocross marques (some of which are missing from the motocross article). Even if not notable enough for an article in their own right there seems no reason why Wilcomoto bikes should not be mentioned elsewhere. --AJHingston (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a suitable article; the first reference that came up on google was directed to an enthusiast's blog site (wilcomoto.com) which conveys words to the effect that very little is known about this company, thereby making it unlikely that any published external sources have covered it in depth. Also it was contested for deletion over 2 weeks ago but no references have been found in that time which can broaden the subject. It would seem best if the creator, who undoubtedly has most knowledge in this area, could suggest a suitable article they would like the content merged into? The title should be kept as a redirect.—Baldy Bill (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (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.