Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J&P Cycles

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

J&P Cycles

J&P Cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a business directory! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep a notable company, it is possible to write a decent and well sourced article about them. [1]. The article has potential. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I was pretty skeptical about it at first, as we usually dodelete small businesses like this, but I think it is actually a notable company per the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• WP is not a business directory! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Alan - The Wikipedia Articles for deletion page suggests under the section "How to Contribute...The following practices should be avoided..." - "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." Please help me in understanding what specifically about the article does not meet GNG? HDUltra89 (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Further the same article/guidelines goes on to say "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." - which you have done here. This isn't meant as a personal attack but rather prompt to help me understand what is not acceptable. Repeating that WP is not a business directory is not a valid argument. There are many businesses on WP and that shouldn't be the basis for whether this article is kept or deleted but rather the article meets WP guidelines. HDUltra89 (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Same argument for Motorcycle Superstore to delete was put forth and it was kept. This one has similar merits --Bil Simser (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I think that the ties to the Harley Davidson community, as well as motorcycle culture in general, in conjunction with the involvement with the National Motorcycle Museum are sufficient to justify the article's existence. --Caljerm (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• *Keep Snow keep. Notable company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • what is "snow keep" (I've lurked on WP for some time but have to admit this is the first time I have seen this term)? HDUltra89 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Check out Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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.