Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Outlaws

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. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The American Outlaws

The American Outlaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I just declined an A7 speedy on this article about an unnofficial supporter's group for the US soccer team however I am really not convinced that it meets WP:ORG so am bringing it here for the community to decide. The cites in the article are either primary or from blogs & I have struggled to find any WP:RS to back them up. To place the club in context it appears that there are several supporters clubs for the team, the most prominent being Sam's Army & even that is of questionable note. Nancy ^talk 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been some other references added, one of which is from ESPN.com. I feel that this article should definitely not be deleted. There have been mentions of American Outlaws in many credible 3rd party sources and even during live tv broadcasts of soccer games (not sure how I would go about citing that). Franharrington (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is another link from a 3rd party page referencing The American Outlaws Goal.com. Franharrington (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The addition of RS make it valid. Keep. • Freechild'sup? 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The layout of the page and the sourcing has been improved. Is this page still a candidate for deletion? Garrett3000 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any good reason for this to still be a candidate for deletion. Franharrington (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Started local but have expanded [1] Mentioned here, here (although subscription needed) and even in a British newspaper here Polargeo (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2009 (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.