Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles street gangs

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 protect from recreation as a nonsense magnet. At the end of the AfD, the article contained six gangs, all of which are also in List of California street gangs. As an unlikely search term, a redirect would make little sense. Sandstein 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles street gangs[edit]

* Keep Just needs some cleanup. Perhaps only the notable gangs should be listed, as well as what part of Los Angeles they're from. --MasterA113 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is insane, especially considering how few of these gangs are actually notable (hell, I doubt many of them even exist). There's already a category that performs the same function, and aside from very specific geographic info, this list adds nothing that a category doesn't cover. -- Kicking222 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But add references to avoid hoaxes. Gangs are, for better or worse, a notable and important part of every large city I am familiar with. Their signs and tags would be a useful addition, and "who rides with whom" in which area.Edison 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Anyone can come here and add their "gang" and there would be no way to proove which ones are actually notable, or for that matter, real. If you pared the list down to actual, notable gangs, it would look like this:

Crips

Bloods

Wavy G 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep of course it is verifiable, because the notable ones get news coverage. And the topic is of considerable importance DGG 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The subject is notable, and the list contents are verifiable. Unverified entries should be removed per WP:V. changed opinion, see comments below --Chondrite 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article has just recently gone under a major attrition. When it was brought to AFD, it was a huge, unverifiable mess. As it stands now, the list seems okay, however, there is already an article on List of California street gangs, which is practically the same thing. So now the question is, do we really need both? Wavy G 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Follow the articles' histories. It was moved to California street gangs, but then someone came along and reverted the redirect. ^Blank^Verse 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, but the issue still exists that there are two separate article, one very short list, and one even shorter list, all of which is covered in the other list. Wavy G 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete both, and replace them with proper articles. ^Blank ^Verse 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete. It is constantly being filled with nonsense and hoaxes, different gangs will 'erase' their rivals, much of it is hard to verify (and usually from sources that are less than reliable), ad infinitum, ad nauseum. It should, instead, be replaced by a well-referenced article on Gang activity in Southern California. ^Blank ^Verse 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about any gangs with an article should be kept, and we could remove what race each gang is. I'll go clean it up right now. --MasterA113 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems with the articles on individual gangs are the same, if not worse, as this article. Most of them are tagged with {{unreferenced}} and other dispute templates. Most of them are filled with original research, awkward English and bad spelling, unverfiable information, and often just plain nonsense. ^Blank ^Verse 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it up just a little bit more. --MasterA113 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point I was making initially, was that if the article is pared down to just the list of notable gangs (as it is now), the article is still not worth keeping. Why have an article of five or six gangs, especially when they are all covered in List of California street gangs already? Wavy G 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already a category system for gangs, including a subcategory for Gangs by location, so a list of only bluelinks is redundant. As pointed out by Wavy G, the list of Los Angeles gangs is also redundant to the List of California street gangs. The subject would be better served by a proper article as suggested by BlankVerse. --Chondrite 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point --MasterA113 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge with List of California street gangs.--MasterA113 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note to the closing admin[edit]

If this article is deleted, please protect from recreation.

If the article is turned into a redirect, please do a full protection of the redirect to prevent another recreation (see discussion above). ^Blank ^Verse 15:02, 13 December 2006 (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.