Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikes Not Bombs


 * 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   keep. ( X! ·  talk )  · @077  · 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bikes Not Bombs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable organization. Woogee (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * *Delete per nom.--Little Gordon 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.

*Weak delete I can see the sources Libstar, but does "Bikes Not Bombs" hold much encyclopedic value?--Prodigy96 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.
 * Keep article needs a lot of improvement but plenty of sources exist . LibStar (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added four sources. #s 1, 2, and 4 all focus exclusively on the organization.  #3 corroborates information.  The Mother Jones article especially looks like it could be mined for quite a bit of information.  The first two sources might be on the small side for notability -- not familiar with them.  The article definitely needs more work, but I'm leaning toward keep based on 25 minutes' searching for and adding sourcing. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: I mean to say the publications for sources 1 and 2 might be on the small side. I don't know anything about Dollars & Sense or Bicycle Retailer & Industry News to be sure they're qualify as reliable sources.  Their inclusion in the databases led me to assume they'd pass muster.  The articles themselves are fine.  Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Click on the Google news search up top of the AFD. Read the summaries of various articles that appear.  Is that not notable?   D r e a m Focus  05:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think their politics are off and I see most of the sources are ones that would normally be sympathetic to their POV, but it meets the criteria for notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 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.