This question - Can science explain how bicycles work? - was based off of a claim made by Cracked.com a site for satire and humor. To me I would think it obvious that sites like Cracked and The Onion should not be considered notable with out some other source that backs them up as notable.
If a meme is generally circulated and is accepted as a fact or true by a significant number of people then, yes, it should be acceptable as a notable claim. For example, if Jon Stewart makes a joke about something on The Daily Show and the audience believes it, then it would appropriate for this site to have a question asking if that claim was actually true, regardless of the fact it was presented in a humorous or satirical fashion.
I would say no, obviously not: if the claim isn’t serious, then neither is it notable.
But Cracked.com isn’t (solely) a website of satire and humor, and the claim is actually a serious one (and surprisingly at least partially true – see the comments). I wouldn’t say that a Cracked.com claim is necessarily less notable than from, say, Daily Mail.
I think in this case the OP just chose a bad notable claim, but the question is a valid one. Ive read enough pop sci books to know that the whole subject of bycycle stability is one that comes up time and time again.