Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kogswell Cycles


 * 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Kogswell Cycles

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This boutique bicycle frame maker has a couple of write-ups of its products in the specialist Bicycle Quarterly, which I don't think is enough to pass WP:CORP. Other than that, there is no sourcing upon internet searching (180 Google hits) and no particular claim of notability. Deleted and salted as spam prior to this edition. Prodded and deprodded by User:UnitedStatesian. Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Tolerably non-commercial in tone, which is one of the keys to business-related articles. It seems that Kogswell is an established name in the cycling world, its products extensively reviewed {ONE EXAMPLE FROM BIKING.COM}, which gets it over the notability bar for me. The article might be improved with additional information, such as THIS INTERVIEW WITH KOGSWELL'S MATTHEW GRIMM. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
 * I added a reference to the review in Biking.com here.


 * Keep - Kogswell was also mentioned in the September 2010 issue of Bicycle Times. The largest article in the magazine is about building a commuter bike around a Kogswell frame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.111 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a reference to the Bicycle Times article in the P/R mkII section. Thanks for the tip.  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per User:UnitedStatesian's reasoning in deprodding the article, the Bicycle Quarterly references are enough to establish notability. More cites, based on suggestions in this thread, will help also.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Trade/specialist publications all. Anyway, they make products reviewers like, but what encyclopedic information is there? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the media outlets referenced are trade magazines. Are they "specialist" publications?  Maybe so, in that they are all dedicated to bicycles and bicycling.  However, by that line of reasoning, "Road and Track" is a "specialist" publication in that it is dedicated to automobiles.  In any case, the sources referenced are reliable secondary sources, and seem to meet criteria as laid out in WP:CORP, which does not mention the word "specialist."  Ebikeguy (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." I think that these bike magazines are of limited interest and circulation. If they had the circulation of Car and Driver (1.31 million) then I would of course reconsider. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you draw the line? None of the references are from "Local Media," and  Bicycle Quarterly and Biking.com are widely read.  They don't have the readership of Road and Track, but they have a very significant readership, none-the-less.  Ebikeguy (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Bicycling (magazine) has a circulation of 2.1 million. Has this Kogswell Cycles been reviewed by them? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We could point to countless media outlets that have NOT reviewed countless entities with Wikipedia articles, but doing so would be pointless. What counts is that real, significant media outlets have written articles about Kogswell, establishing its notability well beyond minimum Wikipedia requirements, according to the opinions of all who have voted thus far.  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll bet that those outlets have tiny circulations. Heck, Bicycle Quarterly looks like it might not be notable itself. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Trade and specialist press is quite satisfactory for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I removed my prod of the article after the author promised to add the Bicycle Quarterly refs., which I now realize was premature: Bicycle Quarterly is a self-published website magazine, and describing it as "trade press" is a big, big stretch. The refs. in the article currently are the company's website (not independent), a blog post (not reliable), and three refs. from the aforementioned problematic Bicycle Quarterly. In sum, does not pass WP:CORP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Bicycle Quarterly is a print magazine, not a website. It has a very significant circulation and is cited by many articles in Wikipedia dealing with bicycle design and testing.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is its circulation figure? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation in vol. 9, no. 1 (Autumn 2010), p. 15, an average of 6075 copies of each issue were printed in vol. 8, with an average total paid distribution of 3572 copies. The publisher prints a substantial number of copies to keep in stock because many new subscribers want to buy the backfile. The magazine's original title was Vintage Bicycle Quarterly, and the focus is still on vintage bicycles, the history of cycling, and reviews of modern bicycles that in one way or another hark back to earlier design principles, such as the Kogswell P/R. BWOgilvie (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bicycle Times coverage of a Kogswell commuter bicycle was also featured on the cover. That magazine has a circulation of around 50k according to http://www.dirtragmag.com/mediakit/demo.php.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.111 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Carrite arguments. Needs to be improved and more RS but no reason do delete.-Mariordo (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor to close, please
This discussion has been up for a week, and I think it has run its course. Could an uninvolved editor please review the posted opinions and close this discussion with an appropriate closing notice? Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion has shown that the circulation of the reviewing print magazine has a circulation of 6000 or less, and a "review" in a shopping website, biking.com (buy some seats here), and more people than the nominator have asked for it to be deleted. The underlying reason this article was nominated for deletion remains; there's nothing special about this small company. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A reference to a cover story featuring a Kogswell bicycle from a major magazine with a circulation of ~50K has been added. Additionally, Bicycle Quarterly, the magazine referenced in the previous comment, should also be viewed as a reliable source.  It has a circulation of several thousand and is widely recognized as an important source of bicycle testing and design analysis.  It is used as a reference for several Wikipedia articles dealing with bicycle design and other technical issues.  Opinions in this discussion have been nearly unanimous that Wikipedia should keep this article.  The only dissenting voice is from an editor who previously prodded this article and has not voiced any opinion about it since the additional references were added.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AfDs are monitored and closed by admins on schedule. There is no need to call for a close. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:15, 15 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.