Talk:Sideways bike

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Untitled[edit]

The article should not be deleted for three reasons. Firstly, it is not about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or about web content. Furthermore, the sideways bike has been hailed as the "the first major development in bicycle design for 150 years" ([[1]]). Finally, the article is a stub. I was going about finding more information about the bike to write a longer article, and then suddenly its up for speedy deletion. I know it's meant to be speedy, but comeon, give me a chance to actually write an article!

Keep up the good work. - 20:15, 13 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquimds (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the "hailed as the first major development in bicycle design for 150 years" is unsourced. Yes, it is on the BBC site, but it is in the Magazine section which takes a look at quirky issues. The claim is not attributed to anybody and the only person quoted in the article is the bike's inventor which means that the claim is likely to have come from the inventor himself. An invention is just that - an invention. There is no evidence in the article or anywhere else that the inventor has managed to sell the bike to any manufacturer. It remains, therefore, not notable. B1atv 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...you make a good point there B1atv. Ok, fine, delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.103.45 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article interesting and clearly notable, as (very obviously) do the BBC. The sideways bike is relevant to bicycle dynamics & control theory, which are where I found this article from. The aggressive approach to deletion & B1atv's grumpy attitude, are unnecessary and disappointing.

TWhitmore.nz 2nd July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

I don't see the POV that Bjakt (talk) is refering to, so I suggest the tag be removed. -AndrewDressel 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I see the POV issue. This article already reasonably approximates an NPOV. I do not believe anyone will be confused into buying a 'sideways bicycle' when they intended an ordinary, by this article.. Does nobody have anything better to do than making snippy complaints. TWhitmore.nz 2nd July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 04:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]