Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benno Bikes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This is on the edge between "no consensus" and "keep", but proponents of keeping the article have made a reasonable argument as to the extent of sources available. BD2412 T 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benno Bikes

[edit]

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

Benno Bikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. One source discusses aquisttions which fails to mention the subject, the other reads like a press release issued when it launched. Searches reveal the usual tranche of social media and advertising offerings but nothing substantial. Created by an SPA who created the article after the required 10 trivial edits. Looks like COI or paid editing. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- No, and it makes no difference what I have heard of or not heard of. This AfD is based on the Wikipedia test of notability, nothing more.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Cycling Industry
  2. Bikebiz
  3. BusinessDen
  4. Bicycle Retailer
  5. Forbes (Contributor)
  6. Tagblatt (German language)
  7. Pedelecs and E-Bikes German
  8. Ride German

Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like usual, none of this has depth and most of these are minor niche blogs or magazines. Praxidicae (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor sees what they want to see. Notability is determined in this way. Carry on Lightburst (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's the full extent of mention in reference #3 above: "Sense said about 20 bikes will be kept on the sales floor from brands Opus Bikes, Benno Bikes and WorkCycles...". As I noted above, only passing mentions and nothing that qualifies as notable coverage per WP:GNG.
  • Delete as per my previous comments here and Glendoremus/Slatersteven. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh: Disingenuous cherry picking Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly, I might add. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Benno Bike newspaper clip board settles this. You folks didn't bother to look very hard (or at least not thoroughly) for the sources that establish notability.
The WP:SPA account (allegedly) has little, if anything, to do with the article as it presently appears. Argumentum ad hominem. No Guilt by Association. The moveant makes illogical arguments that are of no worth at all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -WP:ORGCRIT , which applies in thhis case, states at the very beginning "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ". What we have is many fleeting mentions , press releases etc and one single source that deals with one model produced by the company and not the company itself, for which we have no RSs. This does not provide grounds for a Keep vote!.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is Confirmation bias and belief perseverance. You see what you want to see, and will not be convinced otherwise; and disregarding the vast evidence now in the article. You support the conclusion you reached. And we disagree. I WP:AGF. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. There are a number of references added to the article. An analysis of those reference mentioned above in this AfD show the following:
    • This from Cycling Industry News is trivial run-of-the-mill coverage entirely based on the company's press release about their intention to attend a trade show. It contains no in-depth information on the company and fails to include any Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
    • This from bikebiz lists some companies that will attend a trade show and includes a section for Ison Distribution at the end. It contains no in-depth information on the company and relies entirely on quotations provided by the distributor (everything is in quotes), fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    • This from BusinessDen is an article on a new bike shop about to open. The owner says that they will keep about 20 bikes on the sales floow from brands such as Opus Bikes, Benno Bikes and WorkCycles and that its full-service shop will offer services such as tuning and safety inspections. A mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV
    • This from Bicycle Retailer is an announcement that the company (Benno Bikes) has a new exclusive distributor (Serfas) in the US and relies entirely on information and quotation provided by the respective companies. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Forbes is from the "sites" section and is therefore regarded as failing WP:RS. Even if we ignore that, this article also fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on information provided by the founder (including quotations and opinions) and contains no in-depth information on the company. Fails WP:RS primarily but the content also fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
    • This from Tagblatt is a nice long detailed article, mostly focussed on Benno Bike Switzerland, that traces the history of the company. But it relies on information provided by the founder of Benno Bikes Swiss who is a connected source and the only source for the content related to Benno Bikes in the article. There is no indication that any information is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Pedelecs & E-Bikes is essentially an Ad dressed up as an article. All of the information describing the founder and the company is standard stuff seen in most of these churnalistic articles and is straight off the main website for the company. The second half of the article pushes specific Benno Bike models. It is neither significant coverage nor Independent Content, topic fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
    • This from Ride announces that Benno Bikes got an award from Eurobikes. Again, the company description is the same one we've seen in 100s of these churnalistic press release articles, nor is it a significant award nor significant article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORDIND
I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your statements concern 8 of 26 (27 if you include the external link) in line cited and linked sources in the article. I think you have misinterpreted the content of the 8. I know you have ignored the other 18. Ipse dixit doesn't apply. This is a well sourced article about a commercial enterprise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I note your abject failure to point to even a single reference that you believe meets the requirements as per WP:NCORP and your failure to even try to provide any sensible rebuttal to what you believe is my "misinterpretation". I know you have difficulty comprehending applicable policies and that is why you prefer to make vague comments rather than debate specifics. HighKing++ 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surresponse I know your record at AFDs and editing, too. I avoided and will continue to avoid going down the rathole of personal aspersions from which you emerged. Comment on the article, not the editors. WP:Civil. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 9 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benno_Bikes&oldid=1068826768"