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) 00:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neco Scooters

[edit]
Neco Scooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable clone scooter manufacturer from China. There a probably a hundred such companies producing cheap copies of European bikes/scooters. Google for Neco and you'll find lots of mentions, but nothing of any substance - mainly forums or companies selling the bikes. I challenge you to find a single mention in a reputable motorcycle or scooter publication. Biker Biker (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is a poor indicator of notability. What's needed are independent and reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. tedder (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was just trying to answer Dbratland's query about a lack of web presence. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UK distributor's website hardly indicates a professional company and is most definitely not a reliable source. Look on the specifications page. Do you see the glaring mistake there? Obviously the company haven't. Notability is indicated by mentions and reviews in respected motorcycle or scooter journals, yet the UK's leading scooter magazine (Twist N Go, which I subscribe to) has never reviewed or even mentioned the Neco. Motorcycle News which regularly features Aprilia, Derbi, Piaggio, Vespa, Gilera, or Sachs scooters has never once mentioned Neco. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - they just mixed the headers up, easy to do when you're creating HTML. I suspect the lack of mentions in the UK media is due to the fact that Neco are just entering it. I've found at least two French language reviews, they seem to be more established there. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just launching in the UK? So why weren't they among the manufacturers at this week's NEC motorcycle show? More evidence, perhaps, that they are a non-notable clone manufacturer who don't merit an article on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you've watched Top Gear then you'll know that it's not unusual for even major manufacturers no to bother with automotive shows. Like I said before, the Neco Abruzzi isn't a clone. It's bodywork might be a close copy of a 1960's Vespa but it's mechanical components are right up to date. There is nothing else like it. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. What has Top Gear got to do with motorcycles? Show me a notable manufacturer who wasn't at the NEC. There is no way cheap Chinese clone manufacturer would appear there because they aren't even professional (or big) enough to have a proper website. Anyway, that's the last word from me. Let others judge the notability of this outfit. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were LML at the NEC? Regardless of what you think about Neco you can't deny that the Abruzzi/Italia is unique. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble connecting the dots between "unique" and WP:GNG and WP:ORG. In other words, you haven't given an argument about how Wikipedia's notability guidelines have been met. tedder (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing indentation
Here are two articles from on-line scooter guides that meet WP:GNG:
http://www.scooter-station.com/Neco-Italia-125.html
http://www.scooter-infos.com/essai-1573-neco-italia-125.html
Would it be acceptable to use these to rewrite the page so that it is about the Neco Abruzzi/Italia scooter? This is what it was going to be mainly about anyway. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have exactly two blog posts. Do two blog posts constitute significant coverage? The answer is based on Are weblogs reliable sources? and WP:COMPANY. I would say not -- if it were two blog posts on highly influential journals or institutions, perhaps 2 would be enough. But these two blog posts -- only one of them signed by the author's apparent real name, the other uses an Internet handle -- do not show any evidence of being written by professionals who are recognized experts, and there is no evidence that they are subject to editorial control found in normal journals and publishing houses. To me these two blog posts look like a half step above a community forum. They prove existence, not notability. --Dbratland (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't blogs - they are articles in on-line scooter guides. They're probably as reliable as anything you'd find in a printed motorcycle magazine. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've just clicked on the scooter Station 'Who' page and found this, it's a professional magazine.

The staff Scooter-Station and Moto-Station:
Editor & Publisher: Emmanuel Cadiou
Associate Editor: Mehdi Bermani
Section editor test: Christophe Mao
Section Editor terrain: Arnaud Vibien
Editorial Assistant, Community: Alexandre Guichard
Webmaster: Laura Eslan
Developer: Eric Mezzani
Contributors: Philippe Lebreton (Talk Sport), Bertrand Carrière (photo), Christophe Harmand (test market), Christian Boor (test), Philip Chanin (test), Pierre Leguévaques (special old)
Heads pub: Gilles Maillet, Virginia Hoang, Paul Blondé

So it is an online scooter guide with a few people working for it. How does that estabilish its notability as a reliable source? It doesn't have a print copy. Not being Belgian I can't tell whether those people listed above are also reputable journalists recognised in the motorcycle/scooter world. The magazine's "About us" page also clearly states "Scooter-Station est aussi un outil promotionnel (publicité, petites annonces)", which translates as "Scooter-Station is also a promotional tool (advertising, classified ads)". In other words it will print anything it can to get page impressions and advert clicks. None of this does anything to establish the notability of Neco and I stand by my original assertion that it is nothing but a cheap Chinese clone manufacturer that doesn't deserve coverage on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full quote with the key words highlighted, "Scooter-Station is also a promotional tool (advertising, classified ads) recognized by the profession with a target readership."
All magazines have adverts. This was one is subject to editorial control and is as reliable as any other. I think a 1,300 word article in it more than satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiabliity. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recognized by whom, specifically? It's easy to say, but is it true? This blog is not written by journalists and they do not do reporting. They rewrite press release material and post publicity photos supplied by marketeers. You know one reason real journalists do not speak of these knock-off products is that they are basically illegal? The GY6 engine design was stolen from Honda and after being copied by so many Chinese companies for so many years, it became impossible to contest it. Some faceless, nameless factory in China has slapped a fake Italian scooter copy on top of a copy of an illegally-licensed Honda powertrain, and they claim to have invented something "unique". They even have the nerve to try to deceive buyers by putting a false Italian flag on it.

It is for these reasons that reputable sources will not touch them with a ten foot pole, and why we have no trustworthy facts to base an article on. --Dbratland (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather ironic that you mention the GY6 Engine as its page had no references for over 2 years, before I added one from the Neco UK website! You and Biker Biker both edited in that time and didn't list it for deletion. As far as I can see Scooter-Station is a professionally produced scooter guide which is as reliable a source as any other. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did nominate GY6 Engine for deletion on July 11, 2009. It squeaked by due to no consensus. I still think it should be deleted and will probably try again, although I don't want to belabor the point if I'd only be wasting others' time. But now that you bring it up, I'd be happy to remove the Neco Scooters citation, along with all uncited "facts" from GY6 Engine. I'd prefer to have only information you can trust and let blogs and forums discuss rumors and self-serving propaganda. --Dbratland (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing indentation

I don't think we are going to reach a consensus, so the future of this page should be decided on whether Scooter-Station is a reliable source.

If it is just a blog then the Neco Scooters page should be deleted.

However I maintain that it is a professionally produced scooter guide that is subject to editorial control and recognized by the industry. A 1,300 word review in it would therefore meet WP:GNG for the Neco Abruzzi, but not the Neco company.

Consequently I would suggest moving the Neco Scooters page to a new Neco Abruzzi page. I would then expand the article using Scooter-Station as a source. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Let the AfD run its course. In the meantime if you want to start a Neco Abruzzi article fill your boots, but that too may get nominated for deletion if the only source it has is one which you alone maintain is reliable. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. Even if scooter-station is a reliable source, that doesn't demonstrate the depth of coverage necessary to fulfill WP:GNG. The fact that everything hings on one quali-reliable source is proof the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that article is 1,300 words long? There are also dozens of links to dealerships ranging from Bitain to Eastern Europe. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS What does quali-reliable mean please? (for future reference) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Unknowns (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"quasi-reliable" means it isn't clear if that one source is reliable. Read WP:GNG carefully. "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In other words, even if this source is reliable (which is questionable), this is far from "significant coverage in reliable sources". tedder (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another article [1] in Gente Motori, an Italian motor magazine described in Amazon as "an Italian automobile magazine which offers the readers a driver-oriented approach to the automotive world mixing practical topics and entertaining features for all kinds of car lovers."[2] The Neco Italia/Abruzzi is mentioned in at least two different magazine articles in two different countries in two different languages. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an article, it a mention - at best taken from the manufacturer's own press release. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article. The Neco Abruzzi has now appeared in different comercially produced magazines in different countries in different languages. It has come to international attention and cannot be anything but notable. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is yet another article[3] from Omnimoto, a professionally produced Italian language magazine[4]. A quick Google search has so far found 3 reliable sources for the Neco Abruzzi. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a fourth article[5] from the professionally produced moto-infos.com. Take a look at the copyright message in the bottom left hand corner of the home page[6]. You can't copyright somebody else's work. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Alberta

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.
More