Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardian Bikes

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. Whether a redirect is appropriate is a matter that can be discussed separately. Sandstein 06:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Bikes[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mredidiongekong and Scruitineer: Page Guardian Bikes was speedy-delete-tagged for db-corp at 21:48, 5 June 2018‎ by User:Mredidiongekong. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anthony Appleyard Thanks for taking this to AFD, i believe it will help answer and clear some doubts by author as to subject notability. Edidiong (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd actually suggest the article creator to go to the WP:Teahouse for help rather than waiting to have his doubts cleared here. As the article stands I'm minded I'm not prepared to vote a keep but I think I might be on an improved article. I've put some thoughts on the articles talk page … I'd caution the article creator and others improving on the article to rely on my thoughts. Explicit baseline votes and thoughts, suggestions and reasons from AfC reviewer and Speedy nominator welcomed and also their review of any article improvement attempts. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~I'm edited the article lede to emphasise their Children's bicycle is the only child's bicycle to use a single lever for the brakes on both wheels (using the claimed to be safer surestop braking system). Think this is sufficient for a keep vote and this point and I in good faith request nominator(s) reconsider and withdraw at this point or helpfully point out remaining issues.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the existing section ( Single lever two wheel brakes) in the Bicycle brake article. That covers the only aspect that is encyclopedic . The rest is basically an advertisement. The only real alternative is speedy delete as G11. DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The straight redirect would be an issue due to WP:SURPRISE which would lijkely not we overcomable without disrupting the target. The criticisms section could hardly be called be called blatent advertising and had useful content. General lack of support means it is pointless continuing here and it is better for me to withdraw. I find the AfC followed by Speedy completely ridiculous and if we are not prepared to entertain an article on a company producing a design attempting create a safer children's bicycle with a different braking systems and other child orientated features then ... its time to give up. Because of the content I've backed out I've gone back to removing my keep vote.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to give up on trying to find a way to a least mention something of possible significance. The redirect would have been a perfectly reasonable one had you not just now removed the section I suggested linking to at [1]. I've restored it, because I do not think that section too promotional. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Redirect of Guardian Bikes to Bicycle brake because of WP:SURPRISE unless that target section is expanded which would disrupt the target article and might cause a promotion within it; the issue being the target article is already considered overly long. That section is not really adequate ... the one lever braking system may be illegal in some countries for example. There are alternatives I would not oppose but anything I propose if likely to be destroyed anyway so little point. I decided to withdraw what some still regard as my promotional contribution to that article, indeed you say so yourself, though I must admit I choose to repeat 2 cites rather than one (actually a copy/paste error) and I never actually checked what the second was and I might have inadvertently promoted something. Bicycle brakes has over 100 watchers so plently of opportunity for the cyclist community to re-instate that if they wished. On the basis of the promotion should not most of American bike manufacture articles be speedied as well?Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is debatable whether this HuffPost article provides some in-depth information on the company - in my opinion it focuses on the product and not the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. At least two references are required. None of the other references meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it focuses on it is notable - whether the article is specifically about the product, about the company and primarily focusing on product, or about both. Peter James (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if other editors consider the HuffPost reference as meeting the criteria for notability, the article still requires at least one more reference to also meet the criteria before this topic would be seen to be notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other references already in the article, and at least one, Metro, seems to meet the criteria; Gazette Review has significant coverage but I'm unsure of its reliability, and KDVR is unavailable in the UK so I don't know if it meets the criteria. Peter James (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Metro article is not intellectually independent as it is based on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND. The KDVR video is also not intellectually independent as it is also based on an interview with the founder (and even offers a "special discount") and fails WP:ORGIND. Please be aware that while the quality of the source is important, for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, it is more important (because it is more difficult) to find references that are intellectually independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is the words of the author; that part should be intellectually independent. Peter James (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I was rewriting the article then I'd be focuing on Guardian Bikes as a brand with a brand infobox ... which would cover seemlessly into any future buyout. The article creator has unusually not made a comment here (though he has tweaked the article which I'd assume was a sort of keep) but I am a little concerned he may have been offput by the words of the speedy nominator. I remain not happy with the article as is ... feeling my previous edit attempt being tagged as blatent advertising ... though the AfC reviewer considered the article non promotional at that point. Of course at AfD all versions need to be considered. The Gazette review goes on to consider progress past the Shark tank program and seems original investigation and scrutiny rather than straight rework of a press release. The Shark Tank program itself, whilst not reliable for some things, gives due diligence to some facts, as does Mark Cuban's due diligence prior to investment. I'm also somewhat minded this [review] seems independent focusing on the brand qualities, albeit perhaps a tad superficial and possibly a bit surprised Islabikes was not mentioned in it ... that being a company I keep coming across in child bike searches and is a similar albeit more established equivalent to Guardian Bikes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2018 (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.