Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Melbourne 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. Sr 13 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Melbourne gangs[edit]

Unverifiable, mostly non-notable and verging on indiscriminate information. RFBailey 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect this is original research of a fashion. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list it is probably impossible to meet WP:V for the whole list and in most cases individual gangs will not meet WP:NN - thus the list currently only appears to be the indiscriminate writings of an editor or editors - perhaps even original research.--VS ^talk 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until sources are provided, it should be removed. Assize 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to see how this could not be original research. Charlie 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yikes, where to start? Almost certainly violates WP:OR, definitely fails WP:V. No sourcing of any kind, let alone one that might explain how a city Melbourne's size has several dozen gangs or why all the gangs have cooperated in assigning agreed-upon three-letter abbreviations for each. RGTraynor 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NN and given the points made by RGTraynor, probably elements of WP:MADEUP.Euryalus 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain ~~Keep~~ and trim down to verifiable entries only. In time, this could be a reasonable list like List of California street gangs. John Vandenberg 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the vandalism on the page since the Afd and my enthusiasm has waned significantly. I've trimmed the list down to three that are easily sourced to Google News Archive. I am sure that more can be sourced with more effort, but I am concerned that having this article will encourages these kids to do notable things in order to get into the news in order to appear on this list. Any objections for this reduced list to be merged into a new section of Crime in Melbourne? John Vandenberg 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless totally rewritten from reliable sources. No sources provided for any of the article and appears to be original research. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. John, recreate from scratch using referenced entries only and good luck keeping it vandal-free.Ga rr ie 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR at present. Don't let this stop someone recreating the article using only good third-party references though. Lankiveil 23:48, 25 May 2007 (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.