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The result was nomination withdrawn without dissenting opinion. Non-admin procedural closure. Serpent's Choice 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator request to retract nomination. Any administrator or able-bodied individual, please close this AFD. It was a flippant nomination made with a serious lack of judgement on my part. ALTON .ıl 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Banshee 350 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

All articles for deletion (in this nom)

• Total: 56 articles

A huge batch of articles listing specifications of various motorcycles. Out of the list, only five articles successfully cite references, and only three of those cite more than one site. One article (Yamaha_TZ250) is sporting possibly copyvio material, giving information that is 'used by permission'. Most of these articles list no more than a table of the motorcycle's data, and a brief lead. Many contain pictures that are most likely not GFDL or PD.

• No notability - I don't know if there was a previous contention that articles like these did not need a certain amount of sources, but I'm sure each one is probably covered in fan magazines and designer manuals. However none of the articles above assert notability. The leads in many "____ is a motorcycle created by Yamaha" seem to presume being a product of Yamaha's is enough.
• Essentially a directory - very few articles give history, and virtually none (5/57) give references. Most articles contain nothing more than an infobox about the motorcycle's specifications.
• Contributes little - there is little interest in the articles as a whole, and most contain fewer than ten edits, some being cleanup tags or bots. Very few articles link to each, and even between articles there is little connection; it lacks a cohesive navbox or central list.

Very few of these articles are encyclopedic and most contribute little to the project. Interest is not high, and virtually no attempt is made to heed template messages. If not delete, I propose a Merge into List of Yamaha motorcycles or a similar page. ALTON .ıl 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Something about this proposal is fishy to me. Why do so many articles Yamaha FJR1300 link to this one AfD debate? What articles exactly does this AfD proposal cover? Why is it productive to delete a "good start" like FJR1300, when it is substantially past the stub status? Brianhe 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mass nom. The nominator should list each article nominated on this page. MER-C 03:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, all are listed now. I edit-conflicted both of you. ALTON .ıl 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just pulling two more articles at random, Yamaha Diversion and Yamaha Virago doesn't square with your claims that these are delete-worthy articles. Both look substantial to me, with at least some model history. Furthermore, I reject the point "lacks a navbox" as justification for deletion of a class of products. Brianhe 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: While the WikiProject Motorcycling was only started in October 2006, articles are being written and starting to improve. This nom seems to have it in for Yamaha models, yet other manufacturers individual models seem ok. Several motorcycle articles are stubs like most of these were and hopefully will be expanded and sources provided. If this is the sort of AfD that will be put forward then it seems that special interest articles will be in jeopardy from now on. I also notice that the supposed copyvio does not quote the page it is supposed to be from. In fact I cannot find a page containing the original text. ww2censor 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing URL on the TZ250 copyvio was my fault, has been corrected. -- Brianhe 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Many of the articles are notable and do cite sources. I cannot advocate this en masse. Also, many of these article contain info that is encyclopediac, that some would find interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Barang (talk • contribs)

• Speedy close Way too many articles in this bulk nomination. There is no possible way to make a uniform, single judgement about 56 articles. For instance Yamaha YZF600R appears to be a well developed article, while Yamaha Banshee 350 reads like a spec sheet introduced by a ripoff of a product brochure. Listed separately, I would !vote to keep the first, but delete the second. Please break up into smaller groupings, preferably at related levels of quality. Resolute 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Speedy close as per Resolute. Stammer 08:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close 56 articles are far too many for a blanket nom. DarkAudit 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close- agree- perhaps you could nominate one to gain a thought of notability rather than the community having to make such a large pronouncement. Thunderwing 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as well. Several of the nominated articles are written fairly well and are about clearly notable topics. I could not in good faith make any kind of mass decision on all of these articles at once given their diverse states. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Every article is unique. Telempe 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. As a masss removal, this has a lot to be desired. I can't believe you looked at each article and determined its worth even at a glance. If you will bother to do individual AfDs for each one. ;P vLaDsINgEr 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This is the strangest AfD I've come across on Wikipedia to date. The proposer of which is at best ill-advised and patently unqualified in the subject matter, and at worst, quite devious. Many of these articles are not perfect, but most are certainly of sufficient interest and notability, as to be encyclopaedic, and that is not to mention that many are the product of much hard work by enthusiastic Wikipedians. If a self appointed 'Wiki-Elite' has problems here and can't leave things be, then they should first take trouble to understand the subject and only then feel free to improve the articles in conjunction with the rest of us...playbike 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree: Yamaha Motor Company produces a huge number of motorcycles, not only from the parent company itself but also from regional branches. Some of the models are only available in certain regions or countries such as underbone models which are only available in Southeast Asia. Deleting the articles for all those motorcycles can be considered too ridiculous, and it is too lengthy to describe all those motorcycles within a single article. Besides, most of the articles do include references, which are very hard to find since the distributors are constantly changing the model range, making it very hard to find information references for older Yamaha models. Hezery99 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: I've requested an administrator to close this. I'm sorry I've wasted all your time. All of you are right, and I am wrong in the extreme. It was a reckless and hasty nomination, and I hope to learn from my mistake. ALTON .ıl 07:19, 11 May 2007 (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.