Moped Army: I have looked online for clues of notability and besides a few vague references, the only real statements made about this organization are from themselves.  It falls very far short of the notability guidelines.  Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 03:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 03:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In 2010, a participant at the previous AfD wrote: Two documentaries and a book mentioned in the article, plus a fair number of sources cited.  It looks like it's been covered enough to be a notable organization, as significant coverage in reliable sources is the baseline for notability per WP:GNG.  —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The documentary, whose Wikipedia page was removed following its own AfD recently, was not made independently of the organization.  If the subject is referenced almost entirely by itself. .  including a “documentary” which I watched and resembles a home video at a party. .  serving next to no purpose. .  doesn’t constitute notability as per WP:N.  Just an fyi.  Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 18:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete I agree that the sources aren’t strong or reliable.  The article for the documentary having just been deleted and redirected to this one means that this article is the only source of relevance for the documentary.  No production company of relevance or notability.  Delete.  TornUpInside ( talk ) 02:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And what “coverage”??  They’re briefly mentioned in articles that are talking about mopeds and which of these brief mentions comes from a reliable source. .?  Independent blogs?  Brief mentions in them?  only three tops?  The rest are just all references to their site?  The documentaries just being home movies produced in association with the actual group?  The book is also in association with the group.  It’s a comic book as well. .  not a written piece about the organization.  This just seem like a joke to me.  Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 18:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 18:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Canada ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ORG .  I found coverage in The Wall Street Journal , The Grand Rapids Press , and the Courier Journal .  APK whisper in my ear 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per APK above.  If you can't open their ProQuest links, I've got other links via the Wikipedia Library below.  Also, some more refs in addition to his: Chicago Tribune lengthy article (newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [26] [27] Traverse City Record-Eagle (newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [28] The Louisville Courier Journal (newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [29] .  The Associated Press via the Odessa American and (newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [30] .  Cedar Rapids Gazette (newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [31] [32] -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Could those arguing for Delete review the newly found sources?  They seem to address the deletion rationale.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Alas, Liz, I was not one of the ones arguing for deletion, but looking at A. B.'s articles, it's clear to me the GNG is met.  — siro χ o 03:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified above.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:49, 20 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep