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 Cycle chic. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle chic

[edit]

Contested prod. No references. Seems to be a protologism. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No amount of promotion will ever make kneepads or Devo helmets "chic". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the points. Chic cyclists favour other styles. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 01:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It actually seems to be a real expression/trend. Two secondary references. Redddogg (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources consist of A) An article in Vogue which is one paragraph long and about fashionable people who happened to use a pedicab once, so it's unrelated to this article and B) An article that mentions "Bicycle chic" only as the name of a blog. Based on evidence thus far, this just seems to be the name of a blog. --Rividian (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Rividan. Equendil Talk 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I always get a laugh from doing Afd's. This is such a cool term i hope it catches on. Till then delete. Operating (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of fashionable clothing for cycling is a good one with a long history and we do not seem to have a good article upon the subject yet. A quick search indicates that there are sources documenting this topic over the years. The current title for the article is perhaps not the best but will do for now and can be readily changed as the topic is fleshed out. Per our editing policy, we should nuture this seedling rather than stamping upon it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every word of this article would need to be rewritten... so there's really nothing worth keeping. If someone wants to write a good article on bicycle clothing, fine... but there's nothing useful towards that here. Anyone who started would delete the current content anyway. --Rividian (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I consider this a useful start. I further note that the article was tagged for deletion within one minute of its creation and that this unhelpful action may have had a chilling effect upon the stone soup.Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both paragraphs in the article do nothing but describe a phrase apparently used just to promote some blog. Those would not be present in a proper article. If the article can be improved, improve it... but vague claims of possible improvement aren't useful, improvement or evidence of sources is useful. --Rividian (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is coming along nicely. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... only one of the sources even uses the term "bicycle chic" at all, and it's not in the context of bicycle clothing. As constituted this AFD is a defense of an article on the term "bicycle chic" as a notable term for fashionable bicycle clothing... and there's still not a single reliable source on that. To keep the article now, based on the sources so far, is basically to permit original research, using a few sources about bicycle clothing, that don't use the term "bicycle chic", to have the Wikipedia article claim "bicycle chic" is some popular term. --Rividian (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources using the term and we have other synonyms such as cycle chic. In any case, the exact phrase is unimportant per WP:DICDEF. The popularity of the topic is also unimportant per WP:N: Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity,". WP:OR is also inapplicable as everything has been drawn from sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're getting that the exact phrase is unimportant... this article is claiming to be about a specific, established term, so the exact phrase is very important. If the article is just about the concept of Bicycle fashion, that's another story, but the article should be moved there. "Bicycle chic" seems to be a proprietary term promoted by blogs, but "Bicycle fashion" is probably a legitimate, encyclopedic topic. --Rividian (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found that we already have another article upon the same topic: Cycle chic. Since the text of that article was more developed, I have been bold and spared us further effort by merging in the content from the article under consideration here. This discussion may now be closed as moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to closing this and redirecting to Cycle chic, they are undeniably duplicate articles and Cycle chic looks better. But as the whole "chic" thing, as far as I can tell, always traces back to self-promoting blogs... I still think the article should be Bicycle fashion. --Rividian (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.