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 no consensus. No consensus to delete, although many agree that editorial improvement such as merging or renaming is appropriate. Sandstein 10:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle chic

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost nonsensical. The article lacks any real direction, deriving a large amount of body text from a very partial history of cycling, which has nothing to do with the lead text. None of the sources have anything to do with what the article is about. If all the unusable stuff were to be stripped out, we'd have a colloqualism, better fit for Urban Dictionary than for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one. I agree the current article is incoherent, and that 'cycle chic' is a term that doesn't seem to warrant a separate encyclopedia entry (though it might be worth a section in a broader one). But the 'History' section includes useful sourced content that perhaps could form part of an article on cycle clothing (note that h2g2 has an article on this topic), so I'm reluctant to simply delete the article and lose this content. Qwfp (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Merge into List of chics~~ I've now changed into renaming to Bicycle fashion and allowing the article to change to a more wider topic as per below. I stumbled upon this article a while ago, where it was miserable to say the least and added ((fact)). Later I've tried to find reliable sources and expand it a bit, to be honest it has been very tricky and I must admit I have somewhat given up on the article. The article seems to be revolving to much around copenhagencyclechic.com and it's author (Mikael Colville-Andersen who most likely equals User:Coolville), which I admittedly is a regular reader of, but doesn't provide enough with for it to carry an article on its own. It may be merged into List of chics, but I think that that article is borderline ((Cleanup-laundry)). --Heb (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is almost nonsensical as the claim that the sources have nothing to do with this topic seems absurdly counterfactual. For example, the Guardian article is clearly about the topic of "cycling in fashionable everyday clothes". This topic is clearly notable and, while the article is far from perfect, it is our clear policy to persevere. Note also that the matter has been discussed previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle chic. And as for chic and List of chics, those articles seem quite poor, being far too concerned with word usage than the underlying topic of fashion.
- I note in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle chic, that it was nominated with "Contested prod. No references. Seems to be a protologism" and that there seemed to be a majority towards deletion of the Bicycle chic article, though you went "bold and spared us further effort by merging in the content from the article under consideration here". I wasn't aware of this AfD, but in retrospect I actually like User:Rividian's suggestion of renaming to Bicycle fashion, as it is quite hard to find sources regarding the term cycle chic, that are not a part of the idealistic purpose of bicycle advocacy (which is quite obvious since the term is trademarked by a bicycle advocacy organisation). --Heb (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I'm agnostic between cycle chic and bicycle fashion, but the content should definitely be kept. Meelar (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Cycle chic−What does fashion have to do with transforming biking from a recreational pastime to a way of life, Cycle chic is wearing normal clothes, often with a fun twist, instead of sport cycling apparel and Cycle chic is also all about your bike being harmonious with your apparell! —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bicycle#Social and historical aspects. "Cycle chic" is not an established neologism, and there's not enough coverage of bicycle fashion for an entire article. —SW— ^confess 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep altho leaning towards renaming it Bicycle fashion, as a compromise that would take the longer view. We could surely use a bicycle fashion article - according to the The Berg Companion to Fashion, "Since the introduction of the bicycle to the general public, bicycle clothing has influenced everyday fashion." [1] There's already some ref'd fashion history in it. As it is, it's too long to be merged into the bicycle article and there are definitely many more bicycle fashion sources out there. Much more to be said in detail about bicycle fashion and rational dress, including Bloomers [2]. Then there's bicycle messenger fashion trends, which don't usually use the word chic. That said, I think the current cycle chic trend could be expanded enough to stand on its own, as you can see it now references dedicated NYTimes and The Australian pieces along with other ref'd mainstream media mentions. A Google search for '"cycle chic" fashion show' alone yields 67 pages [3] (I have a feeling it would yield a lot more in other languages). But it could wait till that aspect is expanded and it's time for a bicycle fashion article. Novickas (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cycle Chick for other reasons, Cycle Chick alone yields about about 1,650,000 Google results, that's over a million and a half hits. Cycle Chick is not about bicycle fashion but about transforming a largely recreational pastime to an integral part of our transportation system, aka; commuting with flair in these more bicycle-enlightened times—Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree there is enough coverage in reliable sources of the Cycle chic movement on its own to justify a stand-alone article. Just that I'd be sad to not have a bicycle fashion article. But that could be hashed out later at the talk page. Novickas (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification from Novickas: Do you think of "bicycle messenger fashion trends" as a sort of cycle chic thing? If I understand the subject correctly they are in fact two very different styles of bicycle clothing trends? --Heb (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take (which is WP:OR at this point) is that they are quite different. A Guardian article entitled 'Cycling is officially chic' says '...bike-style bloggers...share a belief that the stereotype of an aggressive cyclist in Spandex shorts and wraparound shades does a great deal to harm the concept of cycling...' And a YES! Magazine article entitled 'Cycle Chic Around the Globe' opens with 'Forget the Spandex'. [4]. Where bike messengers definitely wear/wore Spandex. But a casual search didn't turn up anything directly comparing the two styles. More OR is that the messenger bags are still in style. Novickas (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:49, 15 July 2011 (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.