Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellbanianz

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 and redirect to Albanian mafia#United Kingdom. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hellbanianz

[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)

The article in its current state is a mess. A quick Google search reveals that the topic is notable, however it needs major improvements. I tried to draftify it 3 times but due to an unknown error I wasn't able to. I propose to either WP:TNT this article or draftify it. ~~This should be a speedy WP:SNOW close since I believe there isn't much in it anyways.~~ Or if editors desire, they can improve it in real time (I'm aware that AfD is not cleanup, just hoping for the WP:HEY effect). ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 13:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 13:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: A redirect to Albanian_mafia#United_Kingdom also works for me. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 10:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian_mafia#United_Kingdom. The current state of the article seems to be mid-edit-war. There was some reasonable-looking content there a couple of weeks ago, but better to merge it into that main article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to crime in London, or as suggested above. As it stands now, it's a few words on a page, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There appears to be an older version of this article here which appears well sourced and has not been discussed yet. I don't have the time to look into this myself now, but since this AfD is due to close today I'd request a relist so that this version of the article and the sources it contains can be discussed. WJ94 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WJ94's request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revision that WJ94 found looks good (it's certainly an improvement over the current version), and the article can be improved from there. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, there is a notable subject here, but nothing in this article is worth saving in any way, the history is worthless, TNT would make way for someone to actually create an article instead of a half finished stub. No objection to the redirect above after delete (there is nothing here to keep). // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore to the version I linked above - The old version of the article, while certainly in need of improvement, contains enough reliable sources to pass GNG. There is this Guardian article which has four paragraphs on the group, and this Observer piece which is predominantly about them. There is also this paywalled piece in The Times which I can't access but looks like it gives significant coverage too. These two sources also discuss the group but I am unsure about their reliability. I've also found this in The Telegraph - again paywalled but potentially useful for someone with access. TNT seems premature - although the present state of the article might seem to warrant that, there's enough in the history for someone if they wanted to improve it. WJ94 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A subject lacking independent significance, let alone Wiki-notability. The articles invoked are not even about the subject specifically, e.g. : The Guardian piece is about all criminal gangs (title: "21st-century British criminal underworld"); the Evening Standard piece is about a specific Albanian serving time in prison, who is "thought to be member" of the group. Afloat is the aroma of bravado and promotion. And the fact that the text has been created and curated mostly by a couple of quite suspicious accounts, one a semi-kamikaze and the other currently globally blocked does not help. Wikipedia used to be, unfortunately, a lot more tolerant, or perhaps more casual, about such low-quality uploads but, thankfully, not any more. -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2023 (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.