Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moto Guzzi Quota

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 . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moto Guzzi Quota[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)

All 4 sources are advertisements. GNG is not established. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, and Technology. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. This important guideline is brought in the source in bold so will not miss it, yet overlooked in many nominations. Looking for potential sources, as NEXIST and BEFORE prescribe, it is clear that the Moto Guzzi Quota does pass the WP:GNG, as this motorcycle was reviewed by motor magazines around the world and has its own entry in several books. gidonb (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb you are correct regarding the policies. If you can find 2 quality sources, that would establish notability. Can be English, Italian or any language. I only found the Cycle Magazine and other advertisement pieces. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"and other advertisement pieces", "sources are advertisements"<-- why do some nominators still provide red herrings as a response and in the intro and continue focusing on references, rather than sources? References that do not support notability can have a VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTION supporting data in articles! There is absolutely no need to misuse these in delete discussions!!! gidonb (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can you please indicate where you see the ads on article? The reasoning for delete is patently false and inconsistent. Now in page there are 6 authoritative sources of the motorcycle sector both on paper and "virtual", and are neutral authoritative, and affordability. See note on page and this There are sources of the time (late 90s early 2000s) and other more recent ones dating back to 2012, symptoms of the fact that despite the Guzzi Quota bike is no longer built, it is still remembered. See multiple citation on Google books [1] and the great attention given by the magazines of the time [2].5.91.150.80 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the Cycle World and American Motorcyclist articles are promotional or unreliable (let alone "advertisements"), even at a superficial glance it is easy to see that two reviews contain some "down" tables highlighting the motorcycle shortcomings. Cavarrone 17:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about Cycle World magazine, but this review for example reads incredibly puffy and promotional to me, without being a serious nor serious review/publication. Same for this other Cycle World review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About Cycle World, it was at the time of these articles the "the largest motorcycling magazine in the world". The first article says, among other things, "headlights prove inadequate", the motorcycle "perpetually dripped oil", and complaints about the "traverse-Vee" that "shook bolts loose and cracked the exaust headers". The other one ends with "Quota remains interesting, but not altogether appealing." I wonder how is this "incredibly puffy and promotional". --Cavarrone 19:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (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.