Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorcycle seat height

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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle seat height

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

A list of motorcycles by seat height smacks of something that would be useful in a trainspotters wiki - something like Wikia - but a large unwikified and mostly unreferenced list is of very limited use. As a frequent contributor to motorcycle related articles I really don't get the point of this article and suggest it should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic. The only hope this ever had was that the table would be deleted and some encyclopaedic prose added explaining why different seat heights were used. This was suggested but never happened. Even then, it probably wouldn't merit its own article although a section on the subject would be OK elsewhere. There has been little work on it for almost a year. As it stands there is nothing much worth merging elsewhere. I guess the lead paragraph could be reused but even that is unreferenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seat height is undeniably important to motorcyclists. (Source.) I can well imagine that a motorcyclist who wasn't very tall might use this as a search term on Wikipedia, and I think it would be best if they found something a bit more helpful than a redlink. While this content would undoubtedly be helpful to some people, I agree that this isn't encyclopaedic and I'm also concerned that the article as written is WP:OR.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seat height is a standard parameter in {{Infobox motorcycle}}. Usually it is taken from the manufacturer's specifications. Given its easy availability I don't see the need for an article focusing on just this one aspect of motorcycle measurement. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seat height is important, but treating it as if it were this important, by creating a table that essentially ranks motorcycles by seat height, is highly prejudicial and misleading. The reason is that inexperienced, short riders in fact need motorcycles with some combination of narrow width, low seat height, and/or ergonomic body position with respect to handlebar reach and foot peg position. It's not one dimensional, and experienced riders, even short ones, often disregard seat height altogether. A nuanced, contextualized explanation of seat height belongs on pages like Motorcycle saddle, Motorcycle components and Motorcycle design, but a list of this nature is inappropriate. --Dbratland (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic and random. — Brianhe (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can we please base this discussion on whether this subject is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources rather than vague subjective opinions of importance? I've just spent a couple of minutes looking for sources and have found this book that says that this is "perhaps one of the most important size requirements", this one that explains how it is relevant to shorter riders, along with other factors that need to be taken into account, and this one that explains how excessive seat height contributed to the commercial failure of the Meriden Cooperative. There is loads more coverage found here. Yes, we should get rid of the long list of models, which could potentially be expanded to include every motorcycle ever produced, but the topic itself is clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is not that it fails notability or that it fails verifiability. It passes those criteria. The problem is that the existence of the page has no point because it treats a single statistic in isolation. It would be like having a page for Motorcycle engine bore. Is bore important? Yes. Do many sources discuss engine bore? Yes. Should we have a single page about motorcycle engine bore? No. (And yes, Bore (engine) and Stroke (engine) should be deleted because they violate WP:NOTDICT and only repeat a subset of information taken from Engine displacement and Otto cycle respectively, minus the context.) --Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (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.