Jump to content

Talk:Moped Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unremarkable article up for deletion once again

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? OlYellerTalktome 16:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. OlYellerTalktome 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]




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

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)[reply]
That's just the talk page. See here.OlYellerTalktome 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]




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)[reply]

Third Party Sources

[edit]

Please check these sources for possible citation in article:

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