Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical criminals of New York City

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. John254 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical criminals of New York City[edit]

This article has absolutely no references, and the links to people are linked to the wrong people in some cases. I think this whole article should just be deleted. Chexmix53 (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, get sources & cleanup. This is a potentially useful list in that New York has a long history of crime and a lot of notorious/notable criminals, and having a reference that ties them to their gangs and eras, if this fulfilled that promise, would be quite helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'd question whether each of the criminals on the list will ultimately be deserving of a separate article, in which case their inclusion may need a reference. The title is also rather vague: any otherwise notable person who lived in New York City and committed a crime there would seem to be a potential member: list of 19th century New York gangs might work better. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a sufficient number of notable entries in this list and thus in my opinion the article itself should stay. The red-linked entries should be sourced or removed. Overall the list would be improved if entries has a short description of the person's criminal noterity. Chexmix53--the links to people are linked to the wrong people in some cases isn't a valid reason for deletion. If inccorrect linking was a reason for deletion, most the articles I've worked on would have already been deleted. If the link is wrong--FIX it--Mike Cline (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lose That was not my only reason to delete the article. It is just a list of names without any references or descriptions that a lot of the links go to the wrong people. This article has been up for over a year and the person that started it has obviously abandoned it and not one else has taken up the cause. The only edits I see to it are people backtracking links from other pages and realizing that it is incorrectly linked. The article is just a list, with no references and incorrect with potentially libelous information in it. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your reasons for deletion are: 1) The article hasn't had much attention for a year (I can't find the WP:NOATTENTIONFORAYEAR guideline), 2) The article is just a list - seems to me that WP:LISTS pretty much says that's OK in WP, 3) No References - I agree that the non-wikipedia articled entries should be sourced or deleted, but I am not aware of any guideline thats say an entire list must be sourced, especially if it is a list of already notable WP articles. 4) incorrect with potentially libelous... is either POV on your part or if you are factually aware of incorrect entries--delete them and explain why on the talk page.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No legitimate reason for deletion has been advanced. If the article is in bad shape and needs to be fixed, the correct response is to fix it, not to delete it. Also provides a valuable source of redlinks, which indicate absent articles that Wikipedia may need. -- Dominus (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Lose~~ If everyone is ok with a list with over 200 people on it being labeled a criminal without any reference, when it has already been pointed out that many of the entries are incorrect, then I'm done with wikipedia. We are not listing schools in a school district, we are listing hundreds of people and accusing them of being criminals under the guise of an encyclopedia article without any description or reference. That is libel. My point with it being over a year is that the author abandoned it and it has been sitting here for over a year with all these accusations and no backup and no one has picked up the chore of fixing it. I am not going to fix it because I don't think it should even be an article. WP:LISTS is fine for listing malls in a state or things like that but not making a list of criminals from New York, when there is no reference for it. And yes, every time a name is added to the list, and that person is being accused of being a criminal, it should have to have a reference. The name Johnny Thompson is on there and that links to one of the nicest people in the world (who i personally know, and know he has no ties to criminals in New York). That is completely ridiculous. The best part is that this is going to be voted to keep and it will sit here for another year without anyone fixing it. Keep it, it's just another blow to the democracy of fact that is wikipedia. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what "Lose" means in this context? Is it intended as a suggestion that Wikipiedia whould lose the article, or that I am a loser, or that my argument is an ultimately losing one for the Wikipedia project, or something else? -- Dominus (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have stuck Chexmix53's second !vote. Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim "without any reference" is incorrect. There are many references. To name just one example, the article on Louis Pioggi cites New York Times articles from 1908 and 1915, one titled "Louis Poggi Surrenders, Gangster Who Jumped Bail in 1912 to Get Lighter Sentence". How can you seriously claim that there is no reference for labeling any of these people criminals? -- Dominus (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone but the nominator. No valid reasons for deletion have been given. The article needing improvement certainly is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (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.