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. Too many of the delete arguements were based on IDONTLIKEIT and must consequently be ignored; the keeps show there are sufficient sources to meet GNG. The policy based argument has it. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy riders

[edit]

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

Small non-notable club with just 500 members in one country. No references. I believe that it fails the notability criteria for organisations. Biker Biker (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - http://www.mc24.no/article.php?articleID=2827&categoryID=6 was all I could find, and I'm not sure if it's reliable and notability-asserting or not. →Σ τ c. 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try clicking on the "News" section in the "find sources" header for this listing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion - but I'd point out that "a small club with just 500 members in one country" also describes the Australian Federal Parliament. Size is not an indicator of notability. Particularly large bike clubs (and this is a reasonably large one) normally generate sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. I can't immediately find any coverage for THIS group in reliable sources but there is a very large amount of coverage in non-reliable sources (blogs etc) and given the language issue it would benefit from a few more people taking the time to look. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you're talking about a club that anyone may join, size matters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete. Unable to find any significant coverage, but my search is limited to web-available sources and that doesn't rule out coverage that may exist in reliable Norwegian sources. ^Bongo_matic 00:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am neither a bike rider nor a member of this organization, but I can confirm that the group is notable from a Norwegian perspective and that it is significant in the way that it distiguishes itself from other biker organizations in northern Europe. It may be more relevant for a Norwegian Wikipedia entry. CaliViking (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, checked google news and found a lot of articles about the group. Most in non-english, but someone who is multi-lingual could fix this up quick. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added links and summaries of Norwegian language references - mostly newspaper articles though. Also agree with CaliViking. Bondejenta (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User has four edits. I also don't see any additional references to the article. Neutrality^talk 07:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - no references demonstrating notability. Neutrality^talk 07:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try clicking on the "News" section in the "find sources" header for this listing. Then open some of the links. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: ideally, the sources alluded to by Richard-of-Earth and Bondejenta should be posted here investigated before a final decision is made. I almost closed this as delete, but decided to leave it open after reading the most recent comments. Also, for the record, "user has four edits" is not helpful—closing admins are perfectly capable of determining users' experience and weighting their comment appropriately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passing GNG, per: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and more at Google News. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, this article should be renamed to Holy Riders, with both words capitalized. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources showing significant coverage has been found. Dream Focus 13:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a run of the mill biker ministry. How many pages are we going to have based on one or two 200-word local newspaper clippings that say "Wow! They dress in biker leathers AND they're Christians?!" There are a lot of motorcycle ministries. The perennial news coverage about them is quite rote. Wikipedia does not need an article about each of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is just about this article, not other articles or the hypothetical creation of other articles. Article inclusion is based upon topic notability, not overall assessments of the types of articles that Wikipedia should or shouldn't have. Also, refer to Wiki is not paper. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. One outcome of an AfD discussion, besides keep or delete, is merge. The question of whether to merge or not can't be considered without taking into account other articles. By definition, a merge involves other articles. I'm not saying this should be merged, but creating an single article out of these repetitive, run of the mill motorcycle ministry articles would that would be better than keeping this one. And we do need to stop and think if it is logical to have five or ten or 100 articles that all say, "the Blank for Christ/for Jesus/for God MC is special for being bikers who spread the gospel." Can they all be special?
The fact is that bikers drink a lot, do a lot of drugs, and flout the law. Ergo, they become addicts and generally mess up their lives. Ergo, they become fodder for recovering addict motorcycle clubs and/or religion-based motorcycle clubs. There's a lot of them and they're more or less all the same. The news stories about them all have the same hook. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough secondary sources to support a claim of notability.--Cavarrone (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2011 (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.