Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Guards (USA)

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. Tone 09:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Guards (USA)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations or the general notability guideline. The article has one reliable source that discusses the group in depth; the others are variously primary sources, unreliable sources, or contain only passing mentions or no mentions at all. I haven't been able to find significant coverage elsewhere. (Previously prodded and deprodded.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the sort of organisation it is there are enough independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization does meet the notability guideline for organisations.

The organization also includes its various fronts, and as such, an assessment of the organization's notability includes the notability of its fronts. Some of these fronts include, but are not limited to:

- The now-defunct Revolutionary Student Front, confirmed as a Red Guards front in a primary source, covered here, here, and here.

- Anti-gentrification organizations, among them Defend Our Hoodz and Defend Boyle Heights, covered here, here, here, and here.

The organization meets the alternative criteria for non-commercial organizations in that: 1) the scope of activities is national in scale and 2) as demonstrated above, the organization's activities have been subject to substantial coverage by reliable independent sources outside the area of its local units, and 3) the article is not a simple collection of indiscriminate information.
The implication that Incendiary News, Redspark, and Tjen Folket are unreliable sources does not constitute an argument for deletion. Moreover, if upon elaboration the claim is that they are unreliable because they are biased, this claim must be justified and may nonetheless not necessarily imply unreliability.
That the other sources than the one mentioned in the initial argument "contain only passing mentions or no mentions at all" does not seem to be supported by the content of the sources cited; the articles contain in-depth coverage of the events concerning the organization, and that the articles do not narrowly focus exclusively on the organization itself, but rather its activities does not constitute an argument for deletion.AndersLeo (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good job by User:AndersLeo. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 24 December 2019 (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.