Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivendell Bicycle Works

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivendell Bicycle Works[edit]

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

A Google search doesn't show anything to demonstrate verifiable, reliable notability for this company. Looking at the edit history, a few attempts have been made to make it less advert-like, but this doesn't rectify the issue ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TNT. Bloomberg picked it up in relation to taxes, which considering all the thousands of tiny custom bike shops around the world is something. Bloomberg L3X1 (distænt write) 21:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with ~dom Kaos~, that the article is nothing but Company advertising. It is still poorly referenced. Vicedomino (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It might need some work with sourcing, but for those in the cycling world, it is of note. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2017 (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.