Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight OUT Loud


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fight OUT Loud

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG Next to no sources, I just removed content from this article as the sources used do not even mention this group Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried my best to rescue this a few months ago, to no avail. Not notable. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although much of what the group does is housed online and on blogs, many of them notable themselves, I was able to quickly find numerous news reports all supporting that the group does what it states and in the case of the mayor from Fort Lauderdale, was effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, ample secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Were? Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It's borderline, but I think there's enough coverage in secondary sources to justify having an article on this group. Robofish (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Fails GNG and the article reads like a press release.   Belch fire - TALK  23:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * KeeP Notable for infornation per relase 88.146.161.215 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - More than ample secondary sources (Miami Herald, Sun Sentinel, etc.) and ample notability. I assume most of these sources were added after the nom. This should be a an obvious keep at this point. – MrX 03:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:ORG. There now seems to be just about enough independent coverage to sustain this article, in my view. -- Trevj (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2012 (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.