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 of the debate was well, bugger. Okay. Deep breaths. Before we begin, if User:Just zis Guy, you know? and User:CyclePat are labouring under the misapprehension that I (or any other admin, I should think) give a damn about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Motorized bicycle history/Summary of discussion, they should quickly disabuse themselves of the notion.

Although there is a strong contingent of people arguing for deletion, there is no consensus to do so. Also, in all the arguing for deletion, there aren't really that many persuasive points towards deleting the content – it's all about deleting the page, because we don't like what the creator's about. Okay. My personal sympathies, after reading around a bit, lie towards merging into Motorized bicycle and leaving a redirect at Timeline of Motorized bicycle history. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus to do that, based on this AfD, and you don't need the help of AfD or admins to do it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant article which apparently exists primarily to support one user's excessive focus on a single trivial event in the development of the motorized bicycle (see also Talk:Motorized bicycle. As an active author on the Motorized bicycle page I know that we are talking about adding a history section, and there is plenty of space for it in the main article. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm going to agree that this article has huge prospect for expansion, and should be a very useful article in its own right with just a little more info. There is a wealth of info available on the subject, and there's NO REASON this timeline should not contain 20+ events, keep it and watch. EDIT I must add that this page...
• Does not contain original research, everything here has sources, or is common knowledge, if does not have a link to an outside source, you can google it and you will find the information to back up these points.
• Is not a vanity page
• Is not a hoax page
• Is not inappropriate
• Does not infringe on copyrights
• Is not vandalism/nonsense

What then would be the reason for deleting it?

User:K-111

Above user has two edits -- both to this AFD. Not surprising, since it appears that CyclePat is seeding enthusiast forums with pleas for support for his position [1] · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0 is attacking the user K-111 because of his alleged minimal amount of edits, this comment is innapropriate, and does not really put into question the competence of the user. Actually, the fact that user K-111 is from moped army only support the idea that he has expert knowlege on the subject. --CyclePat 18:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "attacking" anyone. It is common on Wikipedia to point out information such as this, to help the closing administrator, who must decide which votes will be considered valid and which won't for the purposes of evaluating a deletion vote. Please stop trying to turn this into "me versus you," it's just not the case. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So a vote from anybody who's opinion on the subject differs from your own is considered invalid? Or?... Taking the page for what it is, it's pretty obvious the consideration for deletion has little if anything to do with the page itself. Not to take sides with anyone - but this is just plain silly.User:K-111

Your comment above is unseemly and insulting. I never made any such suggestions. Generally, a user with less than 100 edits under its belt doesn't get counted as part of an AFD, because of the potential for gaming the system. As I said before, it is common practice to point out when a very new editor is voting in an AFD, since the closing administrator must make a call as to what votes get counted. Note that I said the closing administrator -- which will not be me. So your comment above is not only insulting, it's just plain wrong. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my comment seemed directed at you, I was commenting on the whole deletion process for the motorized bicycle timeline in general, regardless of your opinion on whether or not it should be kept, you can surely see that at this point the discussion of deletion is wholly silly. As for discounting of one's opinion on such, your initial response to my vote seemed to have no other purpose than to attempt and write me off as some sort of lackey for cyclepat - whereas you could have simply pointed out that I was a newly registered member. I'm sorry if my pointing this out has offended you, but maybe a more careful choice of words on your part could have prevented me from taking it in that light. No hard feelings.User:K-111

I only registered so I could comment in here without being a stranger. I've been writing for this site for a long time, I wrote the original stub for the Subaru 360 amongst other things primarily automotive in nature. I will reiterate that this article should not be deleted. If that means it has to be merged with another article, fine, but it will grow and and eventually will just clutter up whatever article it is attached to. Keep it.User:K-111

To answer your question, K-111, the reason for deleting it is that it was created by CyclePat against consensus. It is one of three articles he's created, each one apparently attempting to get his WP:POINT across.

Now, do you mean keep this article, a timeline of the motorized bicycle, defined as a bicycle which has a motor but is rideable without use of the motor, or do you mean keep a timeline for the powered two-wheeler, including motorised bikes, autocycles, mopeds, scooters and motorcycles (which this is not)? Or do you mean keep a timeline of transportation technology, which will also include these milestones? Or do you mean keep an article on the motorized bicycle and its history - from your comments it seems that CyclePat forgot to tell you that this already exists, and that most of the delete voters here are actively engaged in expanding that article and adding history, something with which your help would be most welcome (and in the related moped and motorcycle articles, I'm guessing). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the motorized bicycle page, and I have already done work on the moped page in the past. While this timeline could be merged with the motorized bicycle page, I feel that eventually it will become too bulky as more events are added. Perhaps it could be merged now, and then moved back to a seperate page when that happens? Either way I don't see any good reason to delete it. I don't see any need for a war against two pages that complement each other very nicely.User:K-111

• Delete. No real prospect for expansion, and there is already a transport history timeline under which anything in this domain would sit. Noisy | Talk 19:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked by an anon (although the user page for the IP seems to indicate that it was User:CyclePat: if so, please try and remember to log in and to sign with four tildes) to comment further. Since registering my vote, the timeline page seems to have moved on somewhat, so a review is appropriate. Here goes ...

The page title is incorrectly capitalized. There are many Wikipedia formatting errors and there are also spelling and punctuation errors. There are insufficient wikilinks, and those that are included haven't been checked, because two of them need disambiguating. There is a reliance on in-line external links, which are generally frowned on, but aren't actually against policy.

The items in the timeline are generally trivial, and not the sort of significant events that are usually recorded in timelines. Of itself, this isn't necessarily of concern because there are no hard and fast rules.

The general style of the timeline is out of keeping with (some/most) other timelines (that I've seen) in that it builds sentences for the items, rather than providing wikilinks to articles that expand on the event in question.

I've reviewed the discussions here and elsewhere – please note: discussions would be better off on the talk page so that the admin who decides doesn't have a hard time untangling the voting – and my conclusion is that this information would be far better off as prose style in the motorized bicycle article. I don't have the background (or, sadly, the inclination) to tidy up the errors. My vote remains Delete. User:Noisy | Talk 20:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. No grounds for deletion. As an active author on Motorized bicycle I think AfD? wants to do a merger/delete. This article is a stub. Wiki policy state that a stub should be expanded. Someone once said "the wise man recognizes that he doesn't necessarily have knowledge about everything." This article does have "prospect for expansion." I hope you may understand that this article was created for that reason. Some users, such as AfD?, comes in and immediately censors everything (both here and in the article) (*definitely* relevant to the dispute), and the existing conflict is much broader. For example, the history of this article has been in dispute ever since its merger from electric bicycle. But back to the main issue at hand, some want to have the article completed before its even started. ("Don't put the horses before the buggy") This article is new. Please allow some time for other users to include their knowledge, facts and sources. The article is a branch of the transportation time-line. It appears that "time-lines", in general on wikipedia, unavoidably repeat most of its information in their sister related articles, hence, a merge/delete is totally inappropriate. Also, as suggested, adding all the information pertinent only to "motorized bicycles" (that will eventually be in the time-line) would drastically bog down the main transportation time-line and is much more inappropriate. --CyclePat 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then. Note that the above is the author. I think it's generally bad form for authors and nominators to vote, but to balance the author vote I add one delete. The article as it stands is negligble, and much of what needs to go in there has yet to be sourced. What there is is small and will easily fit in the main article. This article as it stands contains three events, none of which has any demonstrated significance in the history of the motorised bicycle. Your assertion that I am "censoring" the article is ludicrous. All you have to do is provide some independently verifiable evidence that the events you keep banging on about are significant tot he global development of the motorised bicycle, and in they go. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for other AfD watchers: the timeline currently has exactly three items: invention of the wheel (3500 BC), speculation re the first ever (unmotorized) bicycle in 1816, and the author's pet firm, a small Canadian manufacturer of no discernible wider importance, adding a commercial aftermarket motor to a delivery bike in the 1940s (or 1930s, the author doesn't seem too clear on that). If the article stays:

• invention of the wheel gets removed, as pointless and irrelevant to the development of the motorised bicycle
• speculation re the first unmotorised bicycle gets deleted as irrelevant to the history of the motorised bicycle
• addition of a motor to a delivery bike made by a small Canadian manufacturer gets deleted as unverified since despite numerous requests the person who added it has failed to cite any authority to show that this event had any influence beyond the company itself (in whose article it can undoubtedly be covered), precisely the reason it was removed from the parent article in the first place.
• other events have yet to be referenced, since neither the author of the timeline article nor any of the authors of the main article have yet succeeded in getting authoritative documentation on this - it is a sideline to the bicycle and the motorcycle, so has not been studied in any great detail.

That leaves an empty article. Which would be a speedy candidate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Merge, and Comment: I would, for now, merge this into motorized bicycle, and CyclePat (and others) could work on it on a temp page until it has, say, 8 events or more. At that point I would say it is well worthy of its own article, and even now it is borderline. zellin t / c 13:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: History is already under active discussion on the Talk page of the main article. The consensus is against Pat (he's a lone voice in this regard) but he created the Timeline article with the current contents anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is plenty of room for history of the motorized bicycle's development to be included in motorized bicycle. The only reason this "timeline" was created is for CyclePat to defy consensus on the main motorized bicycle article. This is nothing more than an attempt at a fork to elude consensusbuilding. (I'd also note that this is the second time he's done something similar with this article).) · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Due to the personal attacks and attempt to slander the creator of the article I must interject) In fact, I have added references and sources to practically all the information I included throughout the article; In Bibliography, Footnote, Direct URL link, etc. (Yes! Even for the CMM bicycle information from "The Museum of Science and Technology of Canada") I even went to user Just zis Guy and left this information on his/her user talk page. This is either a lack of understand or total ignorance on behalf of AfD?. If this is an attempt to argue the credibility of the sources, bringing the article for deletion is not the place. (I think the next step will have to be mediation because this type of discussion is becoming inappropriate for the article deletion.) People will see what the article truly is, by going to Timeline of Motorized bicycle history. (Important: you will understand that a timeline, unavoidably repeats a lot of information but in a chronological and graphical method)(This article is to help people understand the important dates, and is to help in developing the history of motorized bicycle)(Please help develop this stub and you will be helping the development of motorized bicycle --CyclePat 01:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, Please see the discussion at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/231648/231620/

Comment: Anyone who wants to see the history should look at talk:Motorized bicycle. I'm sorry Pat apparently feels that my failure to reply in the small hours of the morning in my time zone is an issue, but several of us who are active on the motorized bicycle article feel Pat has a vested interest and is trying to make a point. I followed the link to the forum, the start of the thread rather than the first reply as linked by Pat:

for those of you who don’t know http://www.wikipedia.org it is an online collaborative encyclopedia that everyone may contribute to. I have been doing some recent edits and was wondering if everyone here, if we could get together and add some content. This is important because currently, I decided to add a sub-article called Timeline of Motorized bicycle history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Motorized_bicycle_history) However it is being nominated for deletion. I need your help to fill in the content or place your honest vote before the time is up. Thank you. (Verified User: cyclepat)

Now, I'm all for soliciting help from the wider community, but I really think that the above is a bit naughty, especially asking them for "honest" votes, which casts aspersions on those of us who have voted in this AfD. There is an existing article which needs work, motorized bicycle, that is where the effort should go unless and until the history section becomes unmanageable. That appears to be the consensus (woth Pat the sole dissenter). Given that much of the text entered related to mopeds and scooters (the discussion board is a moped entusiasts board), it should more logically go in the existing timeline of transportation technology anyway, where the blurred boundaries between motorised bikes, mopeds and motorcycles will not be an issue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Irrelevant. (and another character labeling) Your hours of work and fatigue are not really important to the discussion (asside: you should get your nights sleep). Everyone is the master of their own destiny. This is a cry for sympathy and is irrelevant to the dicussion. I do not have any points to make except for, maybe now that we've started these arguments, how tricky, coniving and a be bunch a meanies you can be. I ask that you strike the afformentioned comment. It doesn't have its place because I have no points to make. I simply want to have a nice timeline article. Again, I am being labeled by "jus zis guy". He's attempting to colour my character as if it was all my fault, because I start an article. "Rock the boat." Really, I think he has jumped the gun on this one. As soon as the article was started he decided it needed deleting. It now appears that for Katefan, Woohookity, and jus zis guy, every article edit or creation I try to do, related to motorized bicycle, is grounds for deletion just because its me. Eventually it is then put back in anyway, sometimes right away, sometimes 2 months later (and by them). Crazy arguments like this for every single subject edit! This is turning into harrasement. (But, I guess that normal practice according to these editors and I've not seem the the rest of it (in the context of people wanting to destroy recent edits and articles, according to the way I do it)) I think we're lacking a little faith here. Can you imagine working like that. (and yes this has it's place because, it demonstrates the attacks) --CyclePat 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't have enough for a separate article. Timelines are only useful for big topics. This isn't a big topic. Not even the bicycle or automobile articles have timelines. Or motorcycles. Or mopeds. Or most articles. We tend to prefer histories on here, not timelines. But Pat wouldn't know that because he refuses to learn our formatting, which is how we're voting on yet another article he created on afd. I think this is #3 now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment: timelines has a wide selection of timelines. This article really isn't part of the motorized bicycle anymore then it is part of the timeline. Again, please refrain from attacking. Your tone and generalizing about my alleged methodes or learning and knowlege are trully innapropriate for the subject mater... the deletion of this article. --CyclePat 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment: If there is not a timeline for automobiles or motorcycles, then that is more of an argument for making timelines for those subjects, rather than for deleting this timeline. As for the idea that timelines are only good for broad subjects - we have a quite a comprehensive timeline devoted to electromagnetism and another one devoted to artificial satellites, both of those subjects are highly specialized, but that does not mean that they are not useful in their own right. Also, I don't care about cyclepat, his past history here, or any of that garbage. It has nothing to do with the usefulness of this article - take the article as it is, for what it is, not because of who initiated it.User:K-111

• Keep - Just because every other article ever possible has not yet been written isn't a reason to delete this one. I neither own a motorized bicycle nor participate in any online forums devoted to the topic. An article has to start somewhere. dml 13:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This topic is already being covered in motorized bicycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Irrelvant. User may however find the afformentioned comment handy, however I believe the relevance or irelevance of "this subject" already being covered or "not covered" for instance is not important to the deletion process discusion. It should be striken from record. . --CyclePat 19:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge - from what I can see, there is no reason for this to have a seperate article. This information would be far better in the history section of the motorized bicycle article. Having said that, some of the comments on this page seem to be little more than attacks against the creator of the article - the article should be kept or deleted based on its subject and content, not people's opinions of the author or his actions. We should Assume good faith and show a little more Wikilove.

• I'm doing my best, but at least two of us feel that the traffic is a bit one-way right now. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Motorized bicycle and delete. There's no need for this to be in a seperate article. This should have been worked on in a temp space or a subpage of Motorized Bicycle.  RasputinAXP  T C 12:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Katefan0, above. MCB 07:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(somone might recognize this from his/her user page)(I think it's actually a good mediation) A timeline is defined as: a) "chronology"... but it may also be b) "representation or exhibit of key events within a particular historical period, often consisting of illustrative visual material accompanied by written commentary, arranged chronologically."[2] I think that's where we where differing in opinion. If we take your interpretation of the definition, then you would are possibly correct in saying CCM bicycle doesn't deserve a spot. However, what is a key event? (I think you said the answer to that somewhere else, already) I've indicated elsewhere, that it feels almost like original research or (bias selections) being able to pick and chose. (devils advocat here!) What make you able to discern what information is worthy of notation. As you have said you don't have enough information on the subject. (I don't either, which is why I didn't want to try and speculate if that information was worthy of inclusion). I put the information in as per the a) definition. (and good faith, assuming this information must have some type of influence on the motorized bicycle since it is from a notable source such as the Museum of science and tech of Canada). Chronology could have 3 meaning according to this dictionary. The 3rd one says: "A chronological list or table." (Which make me think... perhaps the name should be Chronological list of motorized bicycles ?) And we know what chronological means right?[3] So please don't consider this me trying to prove a point, I was trully trying to get some usuful information into an appropriat article. Now, what to do? Who's definition is better? (it sadens me to see my information disapear because of some difference of interpratation)

• (Maybe we can come on a concensus to define a little bit better what a timeline is?) --CyclePat 22:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Also I just realize, (as you mentioned on the talk page of timeline) it will be hard to create such a... visual, graphically inclined timeline... that is why I assumed it was the first definition. --CyclePat 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(end of quote)

Comparison: What makes, Timeline of microscope technology an article that is worth keeping vs. this one? I think there are going to be unavoidably some short timelines.--CyclePat 04:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacy: two wrongs make a right. The merits of this article rest solely with the content of this article. Also, this is not the place for a philosophocal discussion about timeline articles. I am having a hard time keeping up with four separate discussions about your vision of the motorized bicycle, let's keep that to the talk pages of the articles in question.

To answer the substantive question, the microscope timeline runs ofver some hundreds of years and pulls together articles on the major figures in the history and the pivotal innovations. Notice how only the pivotal moments are listed? Each entry refers to the invention of a new class of microscope. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Massively Trim and Merge. The list is padded with very trivial milestones, which can be cut without real loss. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with your judgement of "trivial milestone" - each thing in the timeline is worth noting and was chosen to give a well rounded representation of bike motor technology over the decades. Both historical significance and technological innovation were considered. The mechanical design as well was significant in the selection of machines listed here, as I tried to include motors that featured roller drive, belt drive, or were sold as complete motor wheels, giving good representation of all the most important motors that have ever been produced. If we wanted to include "trivial milestones" we could easily have over 100 of them listed on this timeline. But as creating as large a list as possible is not the point, the list is tidy and trim. User:K-111

• Comment: User:K-111 has made some constructive suggestions and additions - as well as making me feel very foolish for not following up Andrew Pattle, who I know from elsewhere and is something of an expert on light motorcycles. I believe it is likely that this "timeline" article will be moved to a new title and focus, and widened to include a cross-linked history of the development of at least motorised bicycles, mopeds and scooters, and probably motorcycles as well since the distinction is in many cases arbitrary. I therefore change my vote to neutral, since I think the new concept has some merit even if we are as yet unable to agree on quite what it should be called or what the scope should be, and deserves a chance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've stated on the article's talk page, I agree that it should be kept if its scope is widened to include other powered two-wheel vehicles and the article is moved accordingly. - Hitchhiker89
  • This sounds like a promising course of action. Broadening the scope of this could probably allow for a lot of growth, and I could see such a timeline being incredibly useful to anyone studying the history/development of motor-driven cycles. --Charleschuck 04:45, 27 November 2005 (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.