Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic lightweight (bicycle)


 * 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  Redirect to road bicycle, with no prejudice to undoing the redirect upon finding sources establishing notability. The history of the article is preserved within the redirect, and the subject can be worked on in userspace. There has been an interest shown in trying to respond to the problem of a lack of sources showing that the topic is independently notable, so the suggestion of redirect as an alternative to deletion is appropriate. Mandsford 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Classic lightweight (bicycle)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable sources provided, and not a notable term. Possibly a neologism or a coatrack article whose aim is to promote one of the brands mentioned in the article. Also, a search in Google books returns very few results Spatulli (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I added this article. Classic lightweight is a common term.  The brands quoted in the article - Hetchins and Mercian - are merely the best-known examples.  If you do a Google search, you can see that there is quite an interest in classic lightweights.


 * I think it would be helpfull if [[User:Spatulli] would make his concerns known on the article's talk page rather than repeatedly trying to delete the page: I'm sure his concerns are valid, but it I believe that a discussion would show that there is no underlying cause for concern.


 * Parsonscat (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Looks like it could use better sourcing but I'm not sure why it has to be deleted -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see WP:NOHARM. "I'm not sure why it has to be deleted " is not an argument to keep. Spatulli (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, CáliKewlKid, you have answered your own question. You say that "it could use better sourcing", in other words you say you don't think that the sources are good enough. By Wikipedia's notability criteria that is precisely why it is being considered for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand why [User:Spatulli] thinks that the term 'classic lightweight' is a neologism: it's common among vintage bicycle enthusiasts. I am also concerned by the way [User:Spatulli] renamed the 'references' section as an 'external links' section - it made me feel that he was trying to undermine the credibility of the article to support his opinion that the article should be deleted. [User:Spatulli], if you are reading, please could you discuss your concerns with others on this page. Parsonscat (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: parsonscat (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Spatulli (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not for me to say what Spatulli's motives were, but to me it looked as though the change to the section heading from "References" to "External links" was because the content of the section was a list of external links, rather than inline citations, which by convention is what "References" sections normally contain. I am not sure why anyone should think that changing the section heading in this way would be seen as "undermining the credibility of the article". Also, I note that Parsonscat has not actually given any reason for keeping, but has just said "keep" and then criticised Spatulli for (a) saying "possibly a neologism", and (b) changing the section headings. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Hi James, and thanks for your contribution. If you look at the Wikipedia guidelines for references, one of the styles it describes is general references. For an under-developed article like this stub, this is an acceptable alternative to the inline citations you are describing.  I'd copy the link here, but I'm on holiday and it's hard with an iPhone!  The difference between References and External links is that references are the sources used to verify the information in the article.  External links is other material of interest, but not that used to verify the article.  Do you understand why I am concerned now?  To me, renaming the 'References' section as an External links section is saying that the article isn't verifiable.  I think it is.  Note that the references include a magazine article, a newspaper article and a book, so they aren't all links anyway. I believe that the references that I have cited show that the term classic lightweight isn't a neologism.  If others disagree, they're entitled to but it us helpful to say why.  Thanks again for commenting - it's great to take part in some healthy discussion. Parsonscat (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment To Parsonscat (and CáliKewlKid), the concern is that there are no reliable sources covering this type of bicycle as such. Can you produce any RSs? Novaseminary (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was unaware that to be included in Wikipedia you must immediately provide sources for your information or face deletion? Please point me to that policy.
 * As far as attacking my opinion for being ignorant (As I freely admitted when saying "I'm not sure why it has to be deleted"), it was not an argument it was a statement, no need to throw the book at me, an explanation of why you think it needs to be deleted is acceptable (as I clearly did not find your stated reasoning convincing). The page didn't get tagged for notability or citations, it was immediately nominated for deletion, this seems like 'shoot first, ask questions later'. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For a similar discussion, see Articles for deletion/Alans and Mosku. Everything on WP should be verfiable (WP:V); this is one of the most important policies of the project. For more on things you might not have realized about WP, please follow and read the links on the welcome banner that was pasted to your talk page a year ago. The reason this article has been nominated is because it seems to meet WP:DEL. ("Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth.") And also take a look at WP:NOHARM. And I never attacked your opinion or called you ignorant, nor did anyone else. I just asked for sources because I can't find them. I still haven't !voted on this Afd, though I am certainly leaning toward delete. Rather than argue in the abstract, provide some RSs that meet a notability criteria and I will just !vote keep. Novaseminary (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The more I research my concerns on Wikpedia the more examples I see. What we appear to have here is a case of Overzealous Deletion Nomination.  Consider reviewing WP:MYTHS, especially "Article quality", "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!" and "What's the rush?".  Nominating an article for deletion, first, without any other attempts at improvement 7 minutes after the article has been created seems like it could be overzealous.  There had been no effort here to work with the author on improving the article, suggesting that it be merged into an article on bicycles (or going ahead and merging it as suggested) or tagging the article.  The first and default action here has been nomination for deletion.  But -- what's the rush?
 * This article is not a good candidate for deletion because Wikipedia is not a final-draft, the author Paronscat is an active Wikipedia editor and he and others should be given a reasonable chance to build the article. Even if his efforts fail, Wikipedia may be made better when the information he and others collect are merged into articles on bicycles. I stand by my recommendation for keep. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The nom claims this term fails WP:N. Failing N is alone enough for deletion per WP:DEL. Which N guideline do you think it meets, CáliKewlKid? Novaseminary (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I tried, but couldn't find any non-trivial mentions in books or news archives. I would not oppose redirecting to road bicycle (which has its own problems, to be sure), but since Classic lightweight (bicycle) is entirely unsourced, there would be nothing appropriate to merge into road bicycle. Novaseminary (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, all and apologies for my delay in replying. I disagree that the articule is entirely unsourced.  Whey I wrote the original draft, it did include references.  Other users have moved these to the External links section, but I stick by them: I felt that the newspaper article, book, magazine article and two enthusiast websites were sufficient to establish notability.  The sources include those that provide significant coverage (particularly the two websites), they are reliable, they are secondary sources, and they are independent of the subject (apart from those in the Further Reading section, which were not in my original references section).
 * The reason why people are struggling to find books that deal with the subject is that you need to find a modern book on the history of bicycles rather than cycling. There are lots of books on cycling rather than cycles, and there are lots of 'old' books, too.  Modern books like Jan Heine's The Competition Bicycle and The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles are a good place to start.  (I can't get hold of these at the moment, but I'll check the local copyright library when I get back from vacation.)
 * Parsonscat (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment I just tidied up the article's references and I discovered that I'd accidentally linked to http://www.classicrendevous.com when I meant to link to http://www.classicrendezvous.com - there was missing 'z'.  The two pages are quite different.  If anyone saw the first - a commercial redirect page by the looks of things - please look again at the second, which is a much better source.  Sorry - my French spelling has let me down!
 * Parsonscat (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment As a term, the coverage seems trivial as I noted above. The general citations to books about bicycles and website that don't consistently use the term do not convince me this is not a WP:NEOLOGISM or just a different way to say road bicycle. As a concept, this seems entirely covered by the article road bicycle as it was before Parsoncat turned it into a disambiguation page (that does not meet WP:DPAGES). Here is that page as it existed before Parsoncat transformed it. I would think it would address everyone's concerns to redirect Classic lightweight (bicycle) to a reconstituted road bicycle article. This way, the "classic lightweight" material can be discussed while the article remains more generically titled and could point people to other sorts of bicycles. The classic lightweight article will be turned into a stub unless some inline citations are introduced. I propose adding that material to the road bicycle article would be a better use of editors' time. Novaseminary (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree that the citations are trivial.  I also suggest that road bicycle and racing bicycle are one and the same thing - http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3511 Novaseminary, I think your recent edits rather miss the point of the article.  The article was created to describe a subset of road bicycles that are interesting because of their traditional craftsmanship and their value to collectors and enthusiasts.  You have removed all the material relating to that - but without that, there isn't an article.  I wouldn't disagree with the information being moved to a section of the racing bicycle page, cross-linked from the touring bicycle page.  Parsonscat (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As for the triviality of the citations, you have not put forward even a single specific reference to an RS (other than general reference to books about bicycles without page numbers or any indication the books speak to the subject at all, let alone in the requisite detail). And I was referring to the sources I found in searches I did. Anyway, you highlighted a problem with all of these articles. Because of the poor or non-existent sourcing, it is difficult to define any of them. With respect to this particular article, to discuss the "value" of a particular collectable, one needs good, inline citations to RSs. ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V) Feel free to add (with appropriate inline citations) whatever you see fit to road bicycle or racing bicycle or wherever, and then change your !vote to redirect there rather than keep. Novaseminary (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm sorry you think that.  I included several sources I felt sufficiently sound in the references section.  Please could you explain in detail what you felt was wrong with each of the sources I cited.  Please be specific.  I have given references.  You need to say what is wrong with each of them.Parsonscat (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As of this latest version, there are five purported references. In order, here is my take on them:
 * 1) This fansite "offering camaraderie among the buffs" is not an RS. It also doesn't support any of the facts in the article; it is just the homepage. It also doesn't support the use of this term, but rather supports the idea that this article is duplicative of road bicycle or racing bicycle because the website refers to its subject matter as "vintage lightweight 'racing' style bicycles".
 * 2) This review (which is not even linked to in the article) is just that, a review of a book. It does discuss Hetchins (and purchasing a mountain bike), but neither the word lightweight nor classic is ever used in the article. This would be a great source for an article about the book, but offers nothing in support of this subject being distinct and notable aside from racing bicycle.
 * 3) I cannot find this article online. But if it covers this bicycle maker, I suspect it fails for the same reason as 2. Nowhere on the Mercian Cycles website can I find reference to "Classic lightweight", including their history page. I do see reference to lightweight frames on the home page, but that would not seem to support a new article, maybe just a discussion of frame types in racing bicycle.
 * 4) I do not have access to the book nor is it searchable on google books. I wonder what pages in particular discuss this type of bicycle in such a way that would indicate it should have an article separate from road bicycle? Maybe some quotes would help make the case.
 * 5) This website is also just a fansite, not an RS. And the homepage seems to have very, very little in the way of citable facts, even if this were an RS.
 * So, two "references" are pretty clearly not RSs, one (the review) never mentions the phrase or anything like it. That leave the non-online article apparently about the bike company which doesn't even use the phrase itself and a general reference to a 208-page book without any indication of why that source supports making this topic a separate article. There is no way what is there now meets WP:GNG. We should delete or redirect to an appropriate target.
 * Novaseminary (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an argument to avoid; see WP:ITSNOTABLE. You have to explain why you think it's notableSpatulli (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Which sources that you've come across indicate to you that it meets WP:GNG (or some other N guideline)? Novaseminary (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge: Per Novaseminary's analysis of the references.  I do not see the independent notability to establish a seperate article from any of the other types of bikes that this content could be merged to. Hasteur (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. According to Novaseminary's analysis of the references, the requirements of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N are not met.  Sandstein   16:00, 6 October 2010 (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.