Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle cooperative


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Bicycle cooperative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page contains original research, ambiguously defines a category of retail establishment, and has failed to prove its notability. I would like to see it deleted. Keithonearth (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I would support if RS could be found, but I don't find them. Although bike shops of this type are a good thing, it doesn't appear that they have yet become an encyclopedic thing. With better sources, this article could stand. LaMona (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There's one of these in my area - it's called the Bike Hub. Given that these enterprises go by a variety of names, searching for sources is not straightforward but it's not that difficult - see The Guardian, for example.  Note that there may be historical and foreign language sources too.  The German Rad- und Kraftfahrerbund Solidarität had over 300,000 members including a bicycle factory organised as a co-op. Andrew D. (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the Bike Hub in North Van? There are a couple of similar bike shops in my area too. Neither are co-ops -- though are often refereed to as such. Similarly, shops I've worked in have refereed to themselves by the term "community bike shop", despite not offering services like the article states they should offer, while other shops I've worked in just identified as a regular bike shop, but offered tools and work space for customers. The term is ambiguous, and the concept is ill defined, and inherently nebulous, making clear definition impossible. The problems with the article are long standing and haven't been repaired. Even if I'm mistaken about the impossibility to have a coherent definition, there is nothing in the article worth saving. Please reconsider. --Keithonearth (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What we need are third-party sources. The guardian article is ok, but just ok, since it's a blog post. We need something that shows that bike cooperatives as a whole have been written about in a reliable source. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok is ok. For such a topic, it is easy to find more sources; it is just a matter of looking.  For another example, see Bicycle Times.   My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * North America1000 14:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * North America1000 14:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * North America1000 14:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and copy edit. Passes WP:GNG. Sources abound, which include, but is not limited to, , , , , , , . North America1000 14:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Community bike shop to sidestep co-op dispute. Robina Fox (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable subject. 'The Next American City' article in the further reading section is significant coverage in a reliable source of the general concept, and there are many RS articles covering specific cooperatives/community shops that have some broader information about the concept.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.