Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Guards (United States)

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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Guards (United States)

[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)

Failure to establish notability per WP:ORG. No "claim to fame" and lack of coverage by third-party sources; almost all the sources cited in the article are self-published, except for two citing the local weekly The Austin Chronicle. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: Article is poor, but there are secondary sources available suggesting some notability.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was expecting to !vote to delete here, for the same reasons as at the previous AfD, and wouldn't necessarily be wholly opposed to a WP:TNT approach, but I think the sources found by BobfromBrockley, especially this extensive profile in The Austin Chronicle, are sufficent to indicate notability. Pretty much all the content and sources currently in the article could go without losing anything valuable, but better sources clearly do exist, somewhat to my surprise. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — If the article is kept, I would appreciate it if everyone who found reliable secondary/tertiary sources could add them to the article where appropriate. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2021 (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.