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. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A defunct local advocacy group. Not notable at all. Only coverage was in local Toronto sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Safiel (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I absolutely agree that this article does not make any substantive claim of notability, nor is it supported by sufficient reliable sourcing to claim WP:GNG — as written, all I'm getting here is that the group might merit a single unlinked mention in the article on 501 Queen, and does not need its own standalone article if this is all that we can write or source about it. I do want to express the caution to @Some Gadget Geek:, who nominated this for prod the other day, that we do not automatically delete articles about defunct groups just because they've gone defunct — if an organization was ever notable enough for an article, then it remains permanently notable regardless of its current activity status. We're not just a directory of currently active things; we cover things of historical note too. The problem here isn't that the group is defunct — it's that under current Wikipedia content standards the article isn't written substantially enough, or sourced adequately, to demonstrate that it was actually notable enough to get over WP:ORG even when it was active. Delete unless somebody can actually salvage it with much more substance and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2015 (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.