Talk:Moped Army

Unremarkable article up for deletion once again

Once again this article is nominate for deletion because once again it has been created and fails to assert the notability of the organisation. It has no references - just a bunch of links which mention the organisation. It has two huge lists of wikilinks all of which are red. I really cannot see any justification to keep the article as it stands right now. --TimTay (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While it would be very surprising if the article didn't end up deleted, I might suggest an AFD discussion for this one - the older article existed for quite some time, and there does seem to be an attempt (albeit a weak one) to provide some third-party sourcing. I would disagree that this is a clear A7 deletion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted twice previously using A7. This time a weak attempt has been made at providing references but nobody has edited it, nobody seems to care about the article. Most likely because it is an unremarkable organisation and therefore the article should be deleted. --TimTay (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked for some clues of notability online. Here's what I found. I'm not saying that these imply notability but it's something to start off with. Perhaps this should go to AfD instead of AfSD? OlYeller^Talktome 16:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Part of a Moped Army coverage piece in The Chicago Tribune
• Scan of article found in the Kalamazoo Gazette
• Article in Western Mich Univ newspaper about Moped Army and the book named Moped Army (the book is not related to the club)
• Coverage on San Francisco Metblogs (very weak source for a ref)
• Feature in Pittsburgh Tribune

Also, I don't think that, just because an article was deleted before, that it should be again without any cited research into the subject. OlYeller^Talktome 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because an article hasn't been edited recently is not a reasonable cause for deletion see: WP:NOEFFORT--voodoom (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Deleted twice? Funny, there's only one deletion showing up in the log for this title.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Shows up twice in this log. Anyway, that aside it seems the consensus here is not for speedy delete. Fair enough. I'll keep a watch and propose under AfD if nothing significant develops. --TimTay (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just the talk page. See here.OlYeller^Talktome 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

---

List of red wikilinks were removed and third-party citations have been added, that covers the main arguments provided above for speedy deletion and non-notability, please bring to light any other problems with the article so it can be remedied --voodoom (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Party Sources

Please check these sources for possible citation in article:

• SF Gate - "Moped diaries "You pedal, you ride, you hit a top speed of 20 mph. But their owners wouldn't have it any other way."
• Pittsburgh Tribune - "High gas prices fuel scooter sales"
• Seattle PI - "Under The Needle: They get their motors runnin': Fans of vintage cafe racers want their machines cheap, old and loud"
• Chicago Tribune - "Moped Army is fueled with all the might it can muster"
• WMU News - "Army of 'Moped' fans await award announcements"
• Detroit Metro Times - "The Iron Hoodies"
• Courier Journal - "Moped Mania"
• WOTV's Report on the Moped Army (Video)
• the Moped to South America Travel Blog
• the Moped Army Graphic Novel by Paul Sizer

--Dbratland (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)