Deletion of Classic lightweight (bicycle)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: According to Novaseminary's analysis of the references, the requirements of ,  and  are not met
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:N)

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  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_bicycle&action=historysubmit&diff=388504514&oldid=386698131 turned it into a disambiguation page (that does not meet ). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_bicycle&oldid=386698131 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:DPAGES)