Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic moped
- 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 Delete nothing really stands out that "classic moped" is more than an adjective.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Classic moped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A better use of what sources there are on this topic would be to expand the section Moped collecting in the main moped article. Dbratland (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Merge — I think the material is useful, but doesn't need to be its own article. WCityMike 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)- Delete as a neologism unless sources can be found using the term "classic moped". –Grondemar 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Evidence of the concept of "classic mopeds" is below
- This is merely evidence of the use of the adjective "classic" in combination with "moped" -- there is zero authoritative support for a distinct, consistent category of classic vs non-classic mopeds. And the only one of those links that meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources is the Austin Business Journal, and it, as well as most of the other links, just use the adjective "classic" to mean some vaguely collectible or historic vehicle. The article Classic car (which probably should be deleted) is the sort of thing we should avoid here: a grab bag of weasel words describing lots of unfounded opinions collected from the 'Net. Lots of people make up things like this and put their opinions on web sites, leading to faux-authoritative articles like Rat bike and unfounded neologisms like "survival bike". It needs to stop. --Dbratland (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Dbratland, I would request you to have another look at the link: http://www.motosalon.ru/moped_eng.html Quote:Classic moped «Classic» moped has a regular bicycle pedal drive with chain transmission to the rear wheels to freewheel and brake in the rear wheel hub, brake includes a rotation of the pedals in the opposite direction. At the rear wheel set is also led by the drive chain of transmission from the engine (hard, no freewheel). Sprocket of the transmission is installed on the same shaft with the engine, but the star shafts and engine can bust a friction clutch (clutch). For the clutch is a lever on the left stick steering. Gearshift no. The right-hand steering handle rotates and serves to throttle the carburetor ( «control handle gas»). On the right hand steering is also installed the front brake lever. There are also «mopeds», made from a conventional bike (there are firms that produce for the special sets), in which case it may remain possible to a full ride in a cycling mode. imho, classic is not being merely used as an adjective here - please also read the rest of the article for context. Rather Classic moped is being used as a noun, along with the best definition of Classic moped that I have seen. There is a difference with the comparison that you have made with cars/classic cars here. The issue is that the definition of mopeds has been hijacked in the last couple of decades by legislators who have defined the term to mean roughly any two-wheeler less than 50cc as opposed to where it started, which was roughly a motorized bicycle with pedals for assistance and starting. This has led to a an effort to recognize the classic moped as being a different class of vehicle from the legislative definition of moped.Indradoot (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (For avoidance of doubt, I am 86.170.204.241, I am not pretending to be multiple people)
- Please take careful look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. http://www.motosalon.ru/ is a website put up by a Moscow company that puts on fairs and trade shows on building, finance, cars, you name it. Websites like that do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. It is a poor English translation but we can see that it only refers to Russian traffic laws, and it seems to treat moped and scooter interchangeably. The text is is also anonymous. Who wrote it, specifically? It does not give any indication of who made up that definition of "classic moped" or what the basis of their opinion is, or whether they are recognized as an authority by independent experts. It's basically a self-published source and thus carries no weight. --Dbratland (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - sources provided in the article not sufficient to provide notability separate from moped to warrant an article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge any useful information to Moped. The term does seem to be well used among moped aficionados, but it doesn't warrant its own article. First Light (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge as per First Light: A classic moped is not what is stated here. This is one narrow article which inludes the word cool three times in the only paragraph it has. The notion "classic" moped that does not include lambretta or vespa or any of the original bicycleswithengines from the 1930's is obviously ill informed young persons (this says "like the VéloSoleX are specifically excluded from the definition of classic moped" and the velosolex page says it is a moped ?!?!?), in bad taste and factually innacurate.Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge what? Besides the unsourced original research and POV, what is there to merge into Moped?
- Delete - I think the article suggests that further differentiation between a moped and a scooter is necessary. But I think these two articles are distinct enough as they are. The term "classic moped" could be introduced into the moped article, as the references above indicate it is used, but I don't think there is really anything from the article in question that needs to be merged. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.