Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination)

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 without prejudice against recreation from scratch. Having verified the various arguments and allegations below by reading the article itself, I've drawn the following summary of the AfD:

  • "Bicycle shaped object", or "BSO", is a widely used jargon among Australian and British cycling enthusiasts to describe poorly manufactured or assembled bicycles. As a topic, it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion.
  • The current content of the article is, however, largely unencyclopedic. Its style of writing is opinionated and contains much original research.
  • The current form of the article also muddled up BSO with "flat-pack bike" and "department store bike". The latter two concepts have much overlap with BSO, yet are different concepts. As a result, the article became a jumbled rant against low-quality bicycle assembly in general.
  • There is much debate about the reliability of the sources. Most of them were found to be reliable, given the local and specialist nature of this topic.

In conclusion, my observation is that despite the clear split the between keep and delete opinions, two rough consensuses have arisen from this debate: the concept is notable, but the article in its current form is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Therefore I'm deleting this article without prejudice against a rewrite from scratch. Interested editors are welcome to ask me for a copy of the source text or to restore the page history as a userspace draft; however, they should be reminded that I don't think there's much on the page that will be useful other than the citations. Deryck C. 16:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Shaped Object

AfDs for this article:
Bicycle Shaped Object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a POV fork, where a jocular, disparaging article title was chosen in order to create a fork where an entire article can be filled with criticism of the subject, and contrary opinions are by definition off-topic. The basis is that some pundits think that very low-end bicycles are not good enough to be called "true" bicycles and therefore are pale imitations, i.e. "Bicycle Shaped Objects" (BSOs). Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • TL:DR — To me it's obvious that this POV fork should be deleted, but this has been discussed at length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object and Talk:Bicycle#Suggested Merge from Bicycle Shaped Object, so I have some replies to previous arguments. Apologies for the tl;dr comment.

    The fact that the term "bicycle shaped object" is supposed to be funny is a clue as to how unencyclopedic this is. Similar humorous attack pages might be Miserable failure or Barack Osama (sic). Note that Lemon (automobile) can refer to both low end and high end cars; it's not about cost cutting so much as warranty, or lack thereof. Some have argued that the term "bicycle shaped object" has become common, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the fact that a term is common does not in of itself make it an encyclopedic subject.

    Any sufficiently large category of product is going to have high end and low end offerings, and inevitably some pundits will argue that the products at the extreme low end are a poor value. If Wikipedia were a consumer shopping guide (it's not) then there would be a place for this type of consumer advice. But we don't fork off ultra cheap PCs (like eMachines) or ultra cheap cars (like Yugo (car)) and write separate articles filled with nothing but invective against them. Value (economics) is a far too complex subject to allow such a POV fork.

    There are multiple sources that use BSO.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] These sources are all op-ed pieces, blogs and personal essays or idiosyncratic consumer how-to advice; none are truly objective journalism or scholarship. For example, none attempt to treat the sellers and manufacturers of these supposedly evil bicycles fairly by asking them to comment and give their side of the story. The sources are also rather incoherent as to what they're really talking about. The Guardian's Matt Seaton, for example, mostly seems to be saying ultra-cheap bicycles are defective, but he confounds that with Dumping (pricing policy), meaning that the bicycles are actually equal in quality to higher priced goods, but are sold at below market value as an unfair trade practice. What's the real subject here? Dumping or "bicycles" that aren't really good enough to be called bicycles?

    Why are all the sources noted in Bicycle Shaped Object and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object from the UK and Australia? If this is a UK-only issue, it should be discussed on a page related to the UK and/or the Commonwealth of Nations. Note that in the US, Consumer Reports has rated the Schwinn Midmoor as a best buy ([8], paywall). At $250, it's at essentially the same price, £150, which the UK sources say is an unacceptably shoddy bicycle. Consumer Reports does say "Inexpensive bikes selling for less than $200 from brands such as Huffy, Mongoose, Roadmaster, and Schwinn may seem like good deals, but we advise spending $300 or more, if your budget allows. [...] Adults should consider inexpensive bikes from a department store only for the most casual use, [...] You might want a mass-market bike for kids who will outgrow a bike quickly or handle it roughly." (Emphasis mine.) Consumer Reports is saying that objectively, ultra-cheap bikes might be OK for some buyers, and so, some so-called "bicycle shaped objects" are in fact real bicycles, for some buyers. Just like an ultra-cheap PC might be good enough for some computer users, even though power users are likely to scoff. You're far into the realm of personal opinion and taste here; not encyclopedic subjects.

    At Talk:Bicycle#Suggested Merge from Bicycle Shaped Object some editors support a merge to Bicycle, but doing so would violate Wikipedia:Systemic bias; the supposed evils of BSOs are only applicable in the context of specific wealthy countries like the UK. There isn't one sentence of objective, encyclopedic text in Bicycle Shaped Object that belongs in any article, so there is nothing to salvage and merge anywhere. The sources might be re-used as raw material to write something encyclopedic in another article, but keeping this article isn't necessary in order to do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I agree with the nominator's reasons. It’s unbalanced and purely negative. Most products have low end prices and you get what you pay for, there is nothing more notable about low end bicycles than any other cheap product. As someone who lives in the UK I can say I have never hear the term here before, if it’s used here it is likely an informal humorous term used by specific groups. Also £150 is a very reasonable price for a bike, I have bought good quality ones for much less. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Also agree that it's very unencylopedic. I have difficulty imagining it seriously improving to have a neutral tone with third-party references, etc. There's nothing really salvageable, so its best to delete it entirely. I had no special interest in the article, I was just passing through with AWB. • Jesse V.(talk) 22:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I stated in the previous AFD for this article, this article is pretty much just someone's personal essay about what could possibly be wrong about cheap bikes. Even if there are reliable sources that use the term, and the nominator makes a strong case as to why there are not, the article in question does not actually talk about the term itself at all in any sort of meaningful way, and thus the entire article would have to be rewritten from the ground up. Rorshacma (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no change from the 1st AfD in March, except that a different group of editors have turned up at the AfD. (Mind you, thanks to Dennis for notifying me - I wasn't close enough that notification was required or expected, and unsurprisingly I differ in my view from his, so his even-handedness here is commendable.)
This term is not a content fork. It's a disparaging term in the cycling community, used to describe poor quality bikes. Much as petrolheads describe an unfavoured engine as a "boat anchor". It's not an everyday term by non-cyclists, but cyclists keen enough to be clubbies or part of an on-line group will likely recognise it.
Is this term sourced to meet WP:N? That's the only real question here, as regards deletion.
As to definitions, then I'd expect £150 to buy a really good quality kids bike for my little nephew's age (although only the likes of Edinburgh Bicycle sell them), a poor bike for my older son at this popular price point, and an evil pile o'junk as an adult bike. You can make a good simple bike for this money, but the market instead demands all the bells and whistles (particularly regarding suspension) and you can't make a good complex bike for this money. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • AD sums up the entire article in one sentence. "It's a disparaging term in the cycling community, used to describe poor quality bikes." In other words, it's a bit of jargon with a variety of interpretations (which is why this "article" is a set of heuristics rather than a description of a subject) used in a particular community as shorthand for a pretty basic concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it is especially not a dictionary of jargon. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This largely appears to be an opinion piece rather than something of encyclopaedic value. The comparison above to boat anchor is a poor one - the wikipedia article just talks about anchors for boats, not the humorous meaning for petrolheads. This is not a precedent for keeping this article. ChrisUK (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I !voted keep at the previous AfD back in March, but may form a different opinion now - anyway thanks for the notification, Dennis Bratland.) This year's "Bicycle Show and Shine" at the Nevada Museum of Art includes the category "Best Bike Shaped Object". The cited Watchdog report is referred to in the context of this term at [9] (but then it was produced with the help of that site's editor-in-chief). -- Trevj (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BSOs are pretty much the antithesis of inferior goods. An inferior good is what they claim to be, a cheap product that is still adequate for the task. The trouble with BSOs is that they're almost all just not fit for purpose and in many cases they're also trying to up-sell themselves as something they're not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheap and generally-unfit-for-purpose variant of subject X" is not established to be a class of subject which it is possible to cover in an encyclopedic manner. Lemon (automobile) is an exception to this because there has been significant cultural impact from that subject (lemon law, and even more significantly The Market for Lemons). That impact is absent here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're redefining minimal notabilty as requiring a change to the law and a book too? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't necessarily fail notability, though the sources are extremely weak and personal rather than objective. The wild charges of false advertising and proffering unsafe, defective transport would be quite serious if they were officially prosecuted. Instead we have breathless accusations on blogs and newspaper opinion columns, i.e. WP:FRINGE. Why has no seller been charged?

But the cause for deletion is not primarily notability so much as that it violates WP:NPOV because it's a WP:POVFORK. We could merge but that would still require meeting NPOV and WP:FRINGE --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Watchdog is inconsequential fringe? The refs include show that pretty much every major UK supermarket chain has sold such BSOs, and that they have also produced advertising material, including TV adverts, that show the single most common fault of these BSOs: the front forks being reversed. Such a fault is obviously dangerous and your loaded terms like "wild" and "breathless" don't change a jot of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if this is a POVFORK, which article is it a fork from? The article history gives no hint. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fork from Bicycle. No different than if someone decided to created an article called Music that sucks or Not proper music from Music, and argued that those who listen to music that sucks, made by incompetent musicians out for a quick profit, will have their musical experience harmed and won't want to have the true joys of proper music.

We've all heard of cars made with defective brakes or steering, but that doesn't mean they should be covered in an article called Car shaped object because if a low-end car has bad brakes then it is "not a real car". Car shaped object would just be a catch-all for gathering attacks against cheap cars. Which would violate NPOV.

The fact that a group of bike advocates feel so strongly about this suggests it might be worthy of mention in Bicycle culture or Bicycle advocacy, such as how vehement they are that one must not ever call a bike a toy, and should only shop at specialty stores and not department stores or big box stores. Consumer Reports isn't steepd in cycling culture and so was willing to allow that buying a low end bike at a big box store might be fine for very light use. But, once again, I say start fresh and use the sources over in those articles without all the POV baggage left over from Bicycle Shaped Object. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that is of course other stuff exists, you do appear to have a point in terms of others maybe expressing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Trevj (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(shitbox probably should be nuked) - the comparison with Econobox is valid and informative - the econobox article is informative and appears balanced, despite lacking sources - I think if the BSO article was re-written to the standard of econobox or better most people would have no issues with the article.Oranjblud (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close (I commented above).
  1. WP:POVFORK states ... do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. I see only one instance of what could possibly be considered disruptive editing,[10] and that appears to be the removal of some unsourced content so isn't that contentious an edit.
  2. Because the term is used by writers, it could be expected to be found in an encyclopedia. This AfD was opened within 48 hours of the cited merge proposal, but as a merger is valid then I don't believe this AfD should be taking placethis AfD appears premature, per WP:BEFORE. The current content could be summarised/rewritten, in accordance with what the sources say. Perhaps a targeted redirect to bicycle#Standards would be appropriate, if it is the case that BSOs often fail standard tests/inclusion of standardised components expected in products of higher quality.
Additionally, it's worth noting that perhaps a second relist last time (rather than the NC compromise) would have led to a different conclusion (e.g. merge). -- Trevj (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice and I'm sorry for not stating the above in my initial comment (some 6 hours and 8 intervening comments before, and within 24 hours of the start of this discussion). I'm not too keen on the wikilawyering accusation: if the parallel merge discussion determines consensus to include the term here on Wikipedia, then what's the point of this AfD? If it doesn't, that's the time to consider initiating a deletion discussion. I'm not aware of any guidelines or policies (except maybe for libellous BLPs) advising that the initiation of deletion discussions is productive when a current merge discussion is underway. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the merge discussion violates the spirit of the previous AfD. That discussion was NC, not Merge. Merging would be against that outcome. If you want to try again for a new outcome, it seems better do-over the AfD (what I did here) rather than just merge in spite of the previous AfD outcome. But then again, it's all so muddled!

    By the way, Barack Osama is a term used by writers, but it's been deleted five times. Not ever term used by writers is a subject for an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see what you mean about a merge being against the outcome of the consensus at the previous AfD, but WP:CCC (which is presumably why you started this) applies outside of AfD too. Perhaps an RfC on the merge should have been included when it was initiated. -- Trevj (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I've amended my comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article truly stands alone, then a paragraph mention in bicycle would be appropriate, which then refers to this article as the main article. If such an edit is accepted by the bicycle guys, then we surely must keep this one (an active discussion is on that page at the moment). If it's not accepted there, without even passing mention of BSOs, then there is little reason to suppose a standalone article is appropriate.

Alternatively this could be merged with the bicycle advocacy page, perhaps with more consensus. ChrisUK (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid point - I think the fundamental topic here (cheap mass-marketed bicycles) is completely valid, and I would expect no-one would object to reasoned coverage of that topic. However the article under discussion, in terms of its content and coverage does not currently meet realistic standards for an encyclopedic article. Title is also problematic - it's derogatory/borderline derogatory. Oranjblud (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the unverified assertions (in Bicycle_Shaped_Object#Technical_disadvantages) or verify them - note that practically every sentence is qualified by "may", example of WP:WEASEL. Some of the content is scurrilous - eg using examples of wrongly assembled display models - does not hold much water unless the bike was sold. (
Suggest merge of remaining verified/verifiable info to bicycle (subsection "low cost bicycles" ?), keep a note that in the UK common slang term is 'BSO', and suggest keeping a redirect from that. Concentrate on facts, not opinions.Oranjblud (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A serious article or section discussing qualitative differences between bicycles might be appropriate. -Dhodges (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article currently has reliable sources that confirm its title and major points. It is about a very specific subset of bicycles and so I don't believe it is a content fork of bicycle. How the subject of the article got its name is irrelevant, I believe. Yes, the article has little positive to say about its subject, but isn't that true of any article about something generally considered to be bad? I can't find POV in the list of reasons for deletion, and anyone is welcome to find and add sources that extol the virtues of the subject. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't have anything positive to say about the subject because if you find any examples of bikes in this category that are good in some way, then by definition they're not BSOs. The article is configured in such a way that only attacks on the subject are possible, and only one point of view is allowed.

    We know that stores like Wal-Mart don't carry anything that doesn't sell in huge volume. It's the whole point of why stores like that exist. So if big box stores are carrying these bikes, they must be acceptable to a wide swath of the public. The sources cited are mostly narrow enthusiast media. This is why it is a fringe view. Maybe the general public simply doesn't demand bicycles that last very long? And this article exists to exhort them to change their tastes, which is POV-pushing.

    Going again to Consumer Reports, the top-rated Schwinn Midmoor nominally sells for $250 (UK£159, AU$237), available online for as little as $230 (UK£146, AU$218), got exactly the same Consumer Reports score as the Cannondale Comfort 4, which is $580. Both weigh 32 lb (15 kg), yet from the sources in the article we are to believe that 15 kg (33 lb) is so heavy that the bike doesn't deserve the name. Is the Cannondale a BSO? One suspects that since both the Schwinn and Cannondale are made by Dorel Industries, they're the same bike re-branded at different price points, one to appeal to bike enthusiasts who need to feel like they paid a lot (i.e. Veblen goods), and the other for the general public who doesn't share that brand/price prejudice. The article is not about a specific subset of bikes; it's a nebulous to the point of meaninglessness.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I believe your first point is not correct. I can find articles claiming that a BSO, even with all its flaws, is better than nothing, just not from reliable sources. Here's a nice one: http://jgbicyclestories.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-defense-of-bicycle-shaped-object.html As for how well defined or not is this category of bikes, well that problem exists for nearly every category of bike and probably for taxonomy at all. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that would be a useful cite to add for a "BSO better than nothing" viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, the fact that this page isn't in article space doesn't mean that you're so far from the need for citation that you can simply make things up. The most POV aspect of this whole article and AfD has been your comments, that never fail to use flowery weasel terms rather than stating a simple fact.
  • "Most" of the sources here are enthusiast sources. That's because they're enthusiastic and write a lot. Yet the article also cites BBC TV programmes and national broadsheet newspapers, using the same term to make the same point with just as much insistence.
  • There is no claim here that an adequate bike can't be built and sold for £150. One of the first rules for making such a bike would be to keep it simple and avoid unnecessary features. The problem is more that the £150 bikes being sold are instead, because this suits the style their marketing has chosen, over-complex and thus these bikes can no longer achieve adequacy for £150. It does indeed seem strange that if an £89 no-suspension BSO can be sold, as can a £150 suspension BSO, then so few retailers are selling this "useful adequate bike" with no suspension and a £150 pricetag. Those bikes, if they are available, are not the target of this article and no-one except you is claiming this.
  • There is no claim here that a 33lb bike becomes over-heavy (for a mass-market bike). It's also a crucial point about bike quality (which this article does discuss) that much of a bike's longevity isn't about features or overall weight, it's about the quality of small components. Part of the trouble with BSO advertising is that their quality isn't obvious in adverts.
  • You claim that the Schwinn Midmoor and the Cannondale Comfort 4 are the same bike, because they weigh approximately the same and are made by the same parent company. Yet once again, much of bike quality is in the component quality details and you have no indication that they're in any way similar! My quick search doesn't find the Schwinn (they're rare in the UK so this is no surprise) except for one listing at £700, compared to £500 for the Cannondale. Some brief details I can see are that the Cannondale is a rigid carbon fork (suggesting a sensible use of manufacturing cost, without trying to achieve cut-price suspension) whilst the Schwinn has a low-end suspension fork. The Cannondale chainset is Shimano Alivio, recognised as a decent quality set as an entry-level to the "named" Shimano sets - just the sort of kit I'd specify on a commuting hybrid. Yet the Schwinn has that infamous flag to near-BSO status, "Shimano 21 speed" (i.e. 3x7). Now it's not obvious to non-cyclists and it's far from axiomatic, but "21" speeds is a world apart from "24" (i.e. 3x8, including Alivio), because 7-speed is based on the old screw-on freewheel systems whilst 8-speed uses a more modern cassette and freehub. As is regular advice to shoppers, getting a foot onto that "8 speed" rung makes for a much more maintainable bike long term. So just from these skimpy details, I'd consider the Cannondale a far better bike.
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "claim". I said "one suspects". It's a straw man to suggest I claimed it as a fact. We agree that you can in fact build a decent bike for a low price, under £150 or whatever, and 33 lb/15kg could be an acceptable weight for some riders, and some riders might find what they need at a big-box store. So then what is the definition of a BSO? It's no different than saying "some cheap shoes are shoddy, but some are OK. Some cheap ballpoint pens are no good, but others are fine." It's a banality to observe this fact. And while were at it, some expensive bicycles are flawed, as are some expensive shoes and ballpoint pens. What we have here is an article that tries to instruct the public to not buy low cost bikes at big box stores, all because some of them are defective. Literally every product under the Sun could have an X shaped object article written because some low-cost products are unserviceable and don't last. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a well-referenced article that has already survived one AfD in, essentially, its current form. Is it perfect? No, but that should be looked upon as a reason to improve it, not delete it. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a consumer advice site. This comes uncomfortably close to spilling over from the almost tautological "cheaper goods are not as well made" to "only idiots buy something like this. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually attempts to make the point that price isn't the issue with many bikes, but the problem instead is how the money is spent. The article also specifically uses "naive" instead of "idiot" to describe the consumers of these products. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence that people who shop at Wal-Mart or Halfords are unaware that low-priced merchandise typically is lower quality than higher priced? What if they actually want a bike that is good for a few short rides two or three times a year? They might be poor, but are they naive? Coincidentally, a book, Just Ride was recently published that takes issue with the notion that you can't be a bicyclist unless you have top notch equipment and special clothing. Some people just want a toy you use occasionally. I think people who buy furniture at Ikea know what they're getting; they're not naive.

I notice all the complaints about difficult to install flat pack bikes begin and end in the year 2009. Was it an isolated event? Did they stop selling them or improve the design somehow to make them more foolproof? Halfords now offers free assembly, yet still offers full suspension bikes for £99.99. Problem solved? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition as I understand it from the above comments (if not present in the article) isn't simply the low price. Isn't it that the inclusion of a number of cheap wear-prone components (such as suspension) is unlikely to result in a durable product worth maintaining? The bike specialists (for want of a better term) think it makes more sense to buy a cheap basic bike than a cheap gimmicky one. The throwaway society of today is based around low-cost products and replacement purchases. Such bike specialists seem to feel so strongly against this that they have a specific term for such things. Yes, there are problems with the article as it is. Yes, there are concerns about its standalone notability. But that doesn't mean that the word shouldn't be included within Wikipedia. (I'm not going to !vote here, and I don't own a serviceable bike myself.) -- Trevj (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot write articles on the basis of opinions like "You can't include a proper suspension on a £100 bike". A few years ago you could have opined that you couldn't build a motorcycle with ABS for under £5000, but then the Honda CBR250R (2011) appeared and now ABS -- good ABS -- is a realistic option for some of the cheapest motorcycles on the market. And as I said, Halfords' now sells a £99 bike with a full suspension, and the complaints have evaporated in the last 3 years.

I get that some activists feel strongly about this -- but that says more about Bicycle culture or Bicycle advocacy, and so writing up something in those articles about bike enthusiasts, not about big box stores, would make sense. Just like the tastes of high end audio enthusiasts could be described in Audiophile, but not a separate article called £100 hi-fi systems are rubbish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've already admitted "TL:DR" that you didn't read the article before nominating it, but could you please read the article. Nowhere does it claim that "£100 hi-fi systems are rubbish" but rather that "hi-fi systems don't work if the speakers are wired to the phono inputs" and also that there's a systematic problem of retail supermarkets failing to be competent as technical bike shops, by gross assembly errors to the point of danger. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admitted no such thing. What is the point of accusations of this nature? It can't change the outcome of this discussion. Re-reading, I see one reference to a misassembly incident in 2011, on a blog post by Eddie Allen, a Web Content Manager and bike blogger, who credits Facebook as his source. Does that meet WP:RS? The rest, the BBC reports, are all 2009, nothing before, nothing since. Where is the evidence that it wasn't an isolated problem in 2009? Where is the evidence that the tens of thousands of buyers of these bikes (they sell upwards of 50,000 of one model!) are naive? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the evidence that they're not naive? Even if it was an isolated incident in 2009, Wikipedia should say something like "The term bicycle shaped object (or BSO) was coined by some observers in 2009. [Blah, blah, summary definition per RSs] This was later refuted by [RS] because ..." (We need RSs that it was refuted, not just editors deciding it's so, which amounts to original research.) -- Trevj (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN says if you want to assert that the tens of thousands of people who continue to buy these bikes every year are naive, then it is your job to cite it, not other editors' job to refute it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis. Watchdog first covered this issue nearly twenty years ago. It really would help if you'd study articles and their sources before nominating them for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator. --76.189.104.118 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't think the current article is very good, and I'm not convinced that the direction that expansion has taken since the prior AFD is the best way to develop the topic. That said, AFD is not cleanup. This topic, under this term, has the discussion in reputable sources that we generally expect to satisfy the GNG. I disagree with some of the claims for deletion. I do not believe that the term lacks specificity, or that it has been used inconsistently in the sources; a bicycle-shaped object is not merely a cheap bicycle, but a poor quality one (whether by intent or accident), generally sold through nontraditional bicycle retailers. The sources are pretty much in agreement there. Nor do I believe that there is a NPOV problem here, any more than there is for Lemon (automobile) or any other article about an inherently negative topic. With all that said, I may try my hand at cleaning the article up. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many of the sources seem not to fall under WP:RS (blogs, consumer review sites, enthusiast sites, etc.). Those sources that do meet that guideline that do mention the term appear to do so in passing; furthermore, there appears to be no consensus on the definition (that is, what specific characteristics make a bicycle fall into this category). Ultimately this is a very weak dictionary definition with possible original research and synthesis used to expand the article. --Kinu t/c 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you have read an old copy of the article, because the current copy, although not yet perfectly worded, is about a type of bicycle, not a term. The reliable sources that discuss this type of bicycle include the BBC, Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic), UC Davis, University of South Carolina, Consumers Union, the Bangor Daily News, and the Herald Sun. These sources use various terms to describe the type of bicycle discussed in the article, and several of those terms are listed in the first sentence of the article. These sources write about these types of bicycles, however, not the various terms used to describe them, and they describe specific attributes of these types of bicycles: weight, fit, durability, components, materials, etc.
  • I do not see "consensus on the definition" on the list of reasons for deleting an article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. A bicycle is

is a human-powered, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, having two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other.

— Bicycle
, regardless of its quality. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 14:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article were about the expression "bicycle shaped object", that might be a valid point. The article is about a type of bicycle, however, that goes by several names, one of which happens to conflict with the definition of "bicycle". The case could be made, perhaps, that "bicycle shaped object" is not the best title for this article, but that is not what this discussion is about, and not having the best name possible is not on the list of reasons for deleting an article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is mis-titled, what would a better title be? Low-quality bicycle? That's about the best I can come up with... and even if that title still isn't perfect, it illustrates the point: Do we really need an article on low-quality bicycles? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that there's a lot of Australian POV (note that the price point is cited in Australian dollars). I've never heard of the term "bicycle-shaped object," but could it be a notable Australian thing? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a small amount of good content here on problems in bicycle manufacturing and if anyone ever created an article on that topic then some of this could go there, but there is no such topic now. Most of the content in this article is unsourced or from non-reliable sources. The best action in this case is to delete. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2012 (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.