Deletion of Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination)

Comment: Many of the sources seem not to fall under  (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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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 -REASON|reasons for deletion, and anyone is welcome to find and add sources that extol the virtues of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: stick a  in it, this article's done
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)