Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-Motion Cycles
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. MBisanz talk 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-Motion Cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article may exist purely to promote a corporate entity. The corporation may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the company is worth a stub. I added a link to where they link all their reviews and such. It's a relatively distinctive product and I think they're notable within the cycling world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I wrote the (admittedly) short article. I have no connection with the company or their products or their employees. I simply came across them when shopping for a new bicycle. I don't think the article reads like a press release as it stands. Co-motion is fairly notable in tandem circles. Wikipedia's article on tandem bicycles lists Co-Motion in its list of manufacturers. A Co-motion tandem has been ridden in the Race Across America (RAAM). I don't know how many bikes they sell annually, nor is this a statistic that's likely to be available from a privately-held corporation; in any case, annual sales doesn't seem to be a criteria for notability.Simplem (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- It is unfortunate that the article does not indicate the scale of the company's operations, to show whether it is a notable or NN company. For the moment I would suggest keeping and tagging as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2008 (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.