Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles

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

Pretty much an unnecessary duplication of information found in the Anti-lock Braking System and Combined braking system articles. Reads like an essay, and bits of it are very poorly written/unnecessary. Not really a valid redirect title. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, upon comparison this article has a significant amount of content that is not present in Anti-lock braking system, nor in Combined braking system. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only addresses the state of the article, it does not address the fact that part of this topic doesn't belong in the article (the combined braking system bit; that's a separate system) and that the other part is a needless fork of something that belongs in the main article (which is certainly not too long to be added to). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference between the ABS in motorcycles and cars. To say nothing of planes and trains. It first appeared on motorcycles long after the first car, and at a proportionately greater cost premium. It spread from BMW to the mass market more slowly, and only first appeared in the low end of the market at the late date of 2011, in the Honda CBR250R (2011), and then two long years later in the 2013 Kawasaki Ninja 250R. Even now, ABS is not a ubiquitous, near-standard feature in motorcycles as it is in cars, although we hear talk that it soon will be (in rich markets, not the developing world). ABS operates differently in motorcycles than cars, and unlike cars, the rider typically can switch it off if desired.
I agree that most of the redundancy should be deleted -- though not all. A little redundancy between parent and child articles is fine. The overall focus of the article should shift to the six points I listed above, and away from the current muddled content. All surmountable problems, and AfD is not cleanup. Forking is a reason to delete an article when it is a POV fork which violates WP:NPOV, but this is not a POV fork. It is a sub-article spawned from the main article to amplify a subject. It's what WP:Summary style prescribes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting the difference, but the fact is, it's not different enough to really contain that much information (especially, as you correctly pointed out, it is not anywhere near a standard feature). It may well be worth taking the TNT approach and coming up with a better title and a new article anyway, as this one is in a really bad state. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the assumption is that because ABS is non-standard, there is not a large quantity of source material? I can see how, not having reviewed the sources, one might think that. But I can assure you that I have several books and magazines on motorcycles sitting here in front of me now and there is a copious source material.
Moto journalists have written pages and pages discussing whether or not you should get a bike with ABS, and whether you should change the way you ride if you have ABS, and when or if you should switch it off. Plus speculation about the present and future costs, and how popular it might become, an is that a good thing or a bad thing?, will the weight come down?, and so on and on. These discussions are inseparable from considerations of linked braking, and traction control systems and slipper clutches. And then you add in different riding modes, like rain, economy, sport, etc. When you ride a bike with these technologies, it is all interacting with the other systems in all sorts of complex ways. So if you have an article about one system, you inevitably will have to discuss the others. Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is already a large article and you can't stuff all this into it; there must be separate articles to cover the numerous parts. I personally find the technical cost and and complexity of it all overwhelming and probably not worth it, but nonetheless, it's there and needs coverage.
If motorcycles were only used for utility, there would be little discussion of ABS: everyone would demand it. But motorcycles play many roles for many people: cheap transport, recreation, and even a "lifestyle accessory" that projects a personal image. Hence many different views on what a motorcycle "should" be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment was poorly written. I would still take the view that there should be a section about motorcycles in the main ABS article (or, possibly, an article on bike brakes, if one exists), and if that got too big, then it should be moved out into its own article. At present, we have a very poor quality article, which reads like a low-rent essay, and covers more than just ABS. The current article needs TNT at best, and to be moved to a better title (although what it would be, I'm not sure: this current title is not that good though.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. It is our editing policy to retain content, not to blow it up whenever it might be improved. Warden (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware AfD is not cleanup. This is not a valid article, it's a very low quality essay, on different topics merged into one place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which means that the excess or irrelvant material should be editted / removed. I.e., cleaned up. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With very little effort, I found articles covering Motorcycle ABS in Modern Motorcycle Technology, Popular Mechanic, and Poular Science. The title of the aricle could use some adjusting, and the articel can be cleaned up but the topic is notable, and the article is not in such a shape that blowing it up and starting over is even remotely appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content appears to be directly notable via sources. If there are stylistic choices in that the article should be a redirect and the content merged that is the prerogative of the editors. Mkdw ^talk 06:43, 12 April 2013 (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.