Talk:List of electric bicycle brands and manufacturers

Inclusion criteria[edit]

The majority of the entries on this list have either external links, red wikipedia links, or no links at all. There are very few entries that actually have a wikiarticle to show notability (the normal minimum prerequisite for inclusion on such lists) and any other requirements for being in the list. Meters (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the few wikiarticles I could find and removed those with absolutely no sources (i.e., no article, no external link, and no ref). Since no-one has responded to my concern in the 4 months since I raised it, I propose that this list be resticted to entries that have wikiarticles to show their notability, or sufficient independant reliable sources to show their notability, per WP:CSC. As it is this is just an indescriminate list of bike manufacturers, sometimes without even proof that they exist, let alone make electric bikes. As user:Timtempleton said when he tagged this article for external link usage two years ago, this is a business directory, and the list has only gotten worse since then. I'll leave this for a few days for any responses before taking action. Meters (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created and/or proposed list inclusion guidelines for two other list articles, guidelines you might find useful here.

Meal kit (hidden text that shows when editing page)

There are approximately 150 meal kit companies.  Please do not add any external links to meal kit web sites, per WP:PROMO.  If the company has a Wikipedia article, please link to that.  If the company has media coverage in a reliable source but doesn't have an article yet, please cite the source.  If you plan to write an article for any of the unlinked companies, feel free to wiki-link but it will be red linked until the article is complete. Please feel free to discuss these unofficial guidelines on the talk page.

and Talk:List_of_shopping_malls_in_Malaysia (proposal on talk page)

There are numerous malls that are not on this list because they are not notable.  Please do not add any external links to mall web sites, per WP:PROMO.  If the company has a Wikipedia article, please link to that.  If the mall has media coverage in a reliable source but doesn't have an article yet, please cite the source.  If you plan to write an article for any of the unlinked malls, feel free to wiki-link but it will be red linked until the article is complete. Please feel free to discuss these unofficial guidelines on the talk page.

TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GO ahead and delete the EL's. per WP:ELLIST this is not acceptable practice. Only links with articles, entries with secondary sources validating their notability should be included in lists of this nature. Ajf773 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to take a long time. I started the ball rolling by deleting the first few brands that didn't have any media coverage, and added a source for one vendor that seems notable but doesn't have its own article yet. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can see if there are articles for some of them to replace the external links. For ones that don't, I wouldn't bother. They can be added again in the future. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for Wikiarticles for all of the entries before my recent comment in this thread. I found at least one. It's possible there are others I didn't find if the article name is too dissimilar to the listed entry. Meters (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm doing. First look for an article. If there's one, then link. Second, look for media coverage. If there's at least one decent source suggesting notability, add the source. If there are none, then delete the entry. Up to e now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup proposal[edit]

All the sources in this article are to Facebook pages. Facebook is not, of course, a reliable source. The best that can be said about these links is that they can be used as the Official website on their article, if one exists. See also the discussion, above.

Unless a convincing, contrary argument is advanced, I am going to remove the red links and all the facebook references. Just Chilling (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC

Strictly speaking, lists don't normally have content without articles. We went through this last year and decided to remove anything that didn't have an article or an independent reliable source to show notability. And now someone has decided to add all kinds of stuff with facebook pages. Better check to make sure that real sources have not been replaced by facebook pages, if you are still keeping sourced entries with no articles. I'm not going to object if you stick to a strict "no red links" policy though. Meters (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red links and Facebook refs removed. Just Chilling (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook links[edit]

Since the consensus is that only notable brands that have their own article are included, here, there is no need for any references. Even if their is a case for a reference, Facebook links should not be added to this page. Facebook is not a reliable source. Just Chilling (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. FB is a primary source that offers no value in this context. @Wyn.junior: Would you please explain your reasoning for including it? Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is an Awesome Source for Companies and Public Figures!--Wyn.junior (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook may be awesome for them, but they are not for Wikipedia. They are self published sources which need to be used with care, not any time a company is mentioned. Here, they serve no obvious purpose. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 20:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook links are to direct people to their Official Facebook Page. This gives them the number of followers along with the full important about the Company or Public Figure. They serve a very important purpose here--Wyn.junior (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We care about what third party sources say about subjects, not what subjects say about themselves. We're not here to direct people to Facebook. References should be here to verify content. The company already has an article for sources to verify what they are, so it seems like a ref is unnecessary, but if one is to be included, it should be an independent, third party source. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 20:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Links show who the actual Company or Public Figure is--Wyn.junior (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Facebook links show who the company say they are. This is an encyclopaedia not a promotional service for organisations. We use reliable /independent/ sources. Anyway, enough already, please just accept the position as it is. Just Chilling (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]