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 SNOW close Between the cascade of keeps referencing sourcing and the nominator's status, there is clearly no merit in this AfD at this point. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moped Army[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a Notable Organization TheZachDOTnet (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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)[reply]
Keep as per C.Fred above. Dayewalker (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Also, the nominator has been blocked indefinitely for username violation, but was under some suspicion at AN/I as well. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Besides the adequate sources that were already listed in the article, a brief look at the talk page lists no less an 16 more good sources that could be used to improve the article. --Dbratland (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2010 (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.