Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Cooper (bicycle framebuilder)


 * Per discussion on my talk page I have voided the AFD close and restored based on a closer examination of available sources. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take this back to AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 10:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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   delete. The issue is notability and no sources have been provided to adduce significant coverage. Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron Cooper (bicycle framebuilder)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see at all how this person is notable.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Distinguished", "Famed" and "most noted". Shouldn't there be a reason given to open an AFD?  Racconish  Tk  11:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Three inline citations for an interesting article about a bicycle craftsman, so it is notable enough for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Racconish  Tk 17:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete What has Ron Cooper done for the sport to be considered encyclopedic? Follow the references, and yes, you'll see the work of a skilled tradesman. Did he revolutionize the bicycle, or is otherwise notable for significant contributions to the industry? Doesn't appear that way. If so, and someone can prove it, i'll gladly change my vote.Slayer (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC) --Disclaimer-- I created this AFD Slayer (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Where in our notability guidelines does it say that anyone has to revolutionise anything, or even make a significant contribution to an industry? We routinely accept articles about entertainers, athletes and politicians who have done neither of those things. This is an encyclopedia, not the The Guinness Book of Records or The National Enquirer, so there is no requirement for article subjects to be exceptional or sensational. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Racconish. He has coverage which praises his skills.   D r e a m Focus  21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Racconish appears to be getting WP:Notability mixed up with WP:PEACOCK. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. First, some apologies, I realize my link for "distinguished" is broken and cannot trace it back. Second, I agree with Hrafn: the key point here is notability, i.e. coverage by 3rd party reliable sources. Yet, as suggested by User:Dream Focus, that reviews by independent 3rd party sources are often praises. In any case, the point I was trying to make was about such coverage by 3rd party sources. When the Boston Globe writes Ron Cooper is a "master builder" or when the Bike show on Resonance FM has a complete show on him, not to mention the various specialized sources cited in the article, I think we are talking 'notability', as you rightfully remind us we should. Racconish  Tk 17:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: no, the point is significant "coverage by 3rd party reliable sources". A single sentence that says "distinguished", "master builder" (or "stupendous" for that matter) is still "trivial mention". Also, it is not clear from the cited blog entry that the "Bike show on Resonance FM has a complete show on him". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment.At least we have cleared the misunderstanding on WP:PEACOCK. Concerning the Bike show, the link provides a transcript of the show which can also been downloaded. Is your point that the show was not dealing exclusively on Ron Cooper? You may be right, I did not listen to the 29:44 mn podcast. I hope we can agree the transcript is sufficient to establish 'significant' coverage. Moreover, I happily strike 'complete' out my previous comment. Concerning the Boston Globe, the article covers 4 custom bicycle builders. For (only) one of them, Peter Mooney, the journalist specifies he "had moved to England to learn frame-making from master builder Ron Cooper". This is 'significant' in the sense of 'meaningful'. Besides, once again, there are other sources cited. Racconish  Tk 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) There is no link to a transcript that I can see, and the blog-post itself is only 115 words long. (ii) WP:Notability DOES NOT define "'significant' in the sense of 'meaningful'". Any old thing can be asserted as being "meaningful", if you're willing to stretch a point (and points are often stretched past breaking in AfDs). Kindly read WP:Notability's EXPLICIT definition of "significant". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a misunderstanding: I did not say the link provided a possibility to download a transcript, but a podcast. And I should have said to listen to a podcast. I did re-read the definition of notability, I do see your point, but I disagree: the article of the Boston Globe deals in a detailed way on custom bicycle making. Therefore, according to me, the fact Ron Cooper is named in this article as a "master" is significant in WP's sense of the term. And the Bike show calls him a "legend". Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 19:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) You stated "the link provides a transcript of the show which can also been downloaded" how does that not mean "the link provided a possibility to download a transcript"? (ii) "the article of the Boston Globe deals in a detailed way on custom bicycle making" -- as this article is on Ron Cooper NOT custom bicycle making, this is I_R_R_E_L_E_V_E_N_T! (iii) "according to me, the fact Ron Cooper is named in this article as a "master" is significant in WP's sense of the term". This is complete RUBBISH! Using the word "master" DOES NOT mean that the BG article "address[es] the subject [of Ron Cooper] directly in detail" and DOES NOT mean that it is not a single sentence and thus "plainly" "trivial mention" (per the footnote to the significance definition). Racconish: your claims are incoherent and have no basis in the relevant guidelines, kindly desist from inflicting them on me. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The above mentioned footnote gives an example of a one sentence mention of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton. The example is trivial as an "isolated information" (cf. WP:TRIV) not pertaining to the main subject. Such is not the case in the BG article: presenting Cooper as a "master" custom bicycle maker is clearly relevant to the main subject of the article, custom bicycle making. More precisely: the article is on 5 American "frame builders". One of them, Peter Mooney, writes the journalist, "had moved to England to learn frame-making from master builder Ron Cooper". The fact the article is centered on American bicycle makers doesn't take anything away from the statement on this British maker who taught the American one. Quite the opposite: it explains us where Peter Mooney acquired his expertise. In contrast, Richard Sachs is simply presented as having had "an apprenticeship in England" with an unnamed person. Clearly, he did not have a "master" as notable as Cooper. In any case, once again, this is not by far the only source on Cooper, not even cited at this point in the article (should it?). But I think it is quite useful as a reference at AFD, coming from a main strean reliable 3rd party source. Should this exchange continue, could it please be in a more civil tone? <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) You failed to address my point that the BG article fails to "address the subject [of Ron Cooper] directly in detail" -- and so, per WP:N is not "significant". (ii) Parsing in excessive detail whether the 'masters' of since-famous apprentices or not does not make that article any more 'direct' or 'detailed' about Cooper. (iii) Your attempt to distinguish the BG article from the Three Blind Mice example is weak at best. (iv) Weak arguments, elaborated upon, without any obvious improvement, argumentum ad nauseum, tends to annoy rather than convince -- and so leads the person being argued at to wish that the person arguing at them would cease the futility -- and will lead to them being increasingly blunt about this wish. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. (ii) and (iii) contradict (i), but fine, let's avoid argumentum ad nauseam and please argumentum ad hominem too. There are also some possibly interesting non-free sources, such as the article in issue n°19 of Rouleur. <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) Neither (ii) nor (iii), individually or collectively, contradict (i). (b) I have not employed an argumentum ad hominem -- though I may have drawn a negative conclusion as to your abilities from the (low) quality of your arguments. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Author appears to have little knowledge of influence on modern or classic frame building, there is little if any importance for jigless fame building, even modern altruistic projects (i.e. Africa Bike or Project Rawanda) use jigs, as without a jig there is little if any chance of creating a consistant product, even in a custom market. Brent/Breanna Ruegammer would be a more important example of a small scale (if now gone) builder who has actually influenced bicycle design.NMC180DAY (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution. Arguments such as 'What about article x' and more generally 'I don't like it' are generally considered unsufficient for deletion, in view of the nature of the Wikipedia project, as long as coverage by independent reliable sources can be established. Please share your knowledge of the subject to improve this article. <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 17:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if NMC180DAY is correct (and I don't have sufficient expertise to comment either way), then it would most certainly destract from Cooper's influence, and thus his notability, if his methodology has been deemed by the industry to be a 'blind alley'. It is thus a reasonable basis for a !vote, particularly in the absence of unambiguous evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is not original research, there should be 3rd party sources to criticize Cooper. As I have found only sources praising him, I would very much appreciate such critical sources. They could be used for an interesting - and naturally neutral - development of the article. <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 18:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I found the article interesting and informative. Needs some serious cleanup, but that's not an AfD issue. What is a bit worrying is that the issue appears (my reading comprehension seems limited these days) is that it is written about a person rather than the products. I say that's worrying because it seems in many cases the two are one and the same. The question, as I see it, is whether or not this would have appeared here if the article was titled "Ron Cooper Cycles". If that is sufficient to avoid BlP concerns, then it seems to me something vitally important about BlP is being missed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#E0F4FE;color=#DD0000">Snotty Wong   chat 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article doesn't need cleanup, it needs sources. Ok, well it needs cleanup too.  Fails WP:GNG.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#E0F4FE;color=#DD0000">Snotty Wong   chat 23:26, 27 December 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.