Talk:Erik Buell Racing

Untitled

I have begun a new formatting model that will be better suited to the evolution of the page. 1190RS was a main heading when it should definitely be a sub heading. I have done that by making the main heading "Motorcycle models." There is still plenty to be added though, and if anyone disagrees with the new format, let's discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnjo10 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS?

The Failure section of the article seems undue and newsy. Should the details be trimmed so that it's more concise? 32.218.34.216 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Replies

There's nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says "go around deleting any recent events you find in an article." My feeling is that the trials and tribulations of EBR, or Indian Motorcycle, Mini, Triumph, etc, with all the bankruptcies and litigation and changes in ownership, are difficult for anyone to follow. People turn to Wikipedia to find these twisty tales laid out in clear, chronological order in a straightforward narrative. Lots of other media don't have the space or patience to give a full accounting of the events. It's a little like viewers who watched the latest episode of Lost (TV series) and then turned to Wikipedia for a summary of what just happened. Also, please read WP:NNC. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that people come to wikipedia to figure out what is going on rather than sorting through a ton of internet news articles. IMO I like the current explanation of events as written. I feel that the News release flag should be removed. It does not read like a news release and it is extremely hard to convince me that a company in receivership is advertising anything. I vote for the removal of that banner. StarHOG (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I expanded this - after waiting a good few days for anyone else to update it - after repeatedly engaging with a disgruntled occasional user in an informative and courteous way around the New Year, explaining what Wikipedia is and is not. I confirmed I had no specific knowledge of Buell and no connection with United States. I researched the sources including website and social media comments deleted by the same IP range as has now deleted content and added multiple banner flags.

I therefore consider myself to be well-placed to compile a dispassionate, NPOV-toned summary faithful to the sources. I left-alone the existing mention of administration/bankruptcy/receivership, assuming GF and there was/would not be quasi-legal arguments over terminology and disparities with any local laws. I included all pertinent info - to selectively omit anything would require subjective opinion on my part. I added a new, full-heading to cover legal/sale proceedings as I disfavour a subheading due to the emboldening being too much in-yer-face, dominating and overly-emphasising, which could be construed as harsh and non-netutral, IMO.

These evocative marques, whilst niche, are an important part of US history and need to be addressed sympathetically and comprehensively, not with 'bits missing', hence the timeline detail, names, monetary amounts, the number of failed sale attempts, etc. I am an inclusionist, and believe I have complied with all Wikipedia precepts. There is no spam as the business name is defunct and the buyer is kept low-key, with a home page link to establish their background. There is no one "press release", as its a compilation of sources. Some of the prose could be shortenend and dumbed-down, but overall it was near where it should have been without selective deletions from IP range with history showing predominantly red.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not one single recent event has been deleted from this article; excess baggage was simply trimmed. For example, these bloated paragraphs:

"At the January hearing, the remnants of Erik Buell Racing were sold to Liquid Asset Partners at a price of $2million, with the proceeds going towards creditor-payments of the parties having declared financial interests against the former business of Erik Buell Racing, including $733,000 owed to Japanese engine design firm Mito Tech, $390,000 owed to Porsche Engineering Group and $202,000 unpaid to former employees.

"Spokesperson for new owners Liquid Asset Partners, Bill Melvin, Jnr., in January 2016 stated an intention to firstly try to find a buyer experienced in motorcycle manufacture to re-establish the business."

were trimmed to this:

"In January, the remnants of Erik Buell Racing were sold to Liquid Asset Partners for $2 million, with the proceeds going to creditors and to former employees for unpaid wages. Liquid Asset Partners stated an intention to try to find a buyer experienced in motorcycle manufacture to re-establish the business."

It's simpler, more straightforward, and contains all the essential information.

Read Rocknrollmancer's edit summaries. He's hardly "dispassionate". 32.218.46.100 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Prose is prose, edit summaries are completely different, something I've already held my hands up to - old news.

The disputed (now deleted [23]) quasi-legal content, where I have been knee-jerk accused of vandalism (Receivership is not specifically a Wisconsin law; deliberately reintroducing errors is vandalism) has already been explained as contributed by other GF editors, supported by sources:
EBR has filed for Chapter 128 protection under Wisconsin state law. Similar to bankruptcy filing, the Chapter 128 status put EBR into court appointed receivership
(Erik Buell)...awaits the results of the auction of the assets of Erik Buell Racing, under a state statute that's similar to federal bankruptcy law. So what sent the company tumbling into virtual bankruptcy?.

Most of it is re-hashed in many places, and I cannot find a reliable source for the (quoted unreliably) 850 registered creditors, but here are scanned court registration documents for creditors. Inclusion of reliable legal detail goes to show the background of the individual(s) concerned in the failure; a large number of creditors suggests a lengthy period.

The September 2015 change (Corrected reference from "bankruptcy" to receivership) is too stale to argue about disputed-accuracy (WP:ITSNOTTHATITSTHIS) of the (para-phrased) content required by Wikipedia. One does wonder if - AGF - 'bankruptcy', likely-derived from the reliably-sourced (JS Online) quote above "virtual bankruptcy" is so heinous, why it wasn't noticed and deleted before now? Why this obsession with Wisconsin? Anything to declare?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)