Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oriental Ruthless Boys

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Ruthless Boys[edit]

Delete. It appears to be a vanity page of a street gang and, at the very least, Original Research WilliamThweatt 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I like that they point out how very not a joke they are. Because Wikipedia is totally hardcore, as we all know. Cantara 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - the gang does get a number of credible google hits, but this article is horribly written -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup as per Thesquire. The article is poorly-written but the phenomenon of street gangs is notable and this appears to be one such notable gang. (aeropagitica) 07:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Absolutely hilarious. I can't believe this is real. Still, the gang doesn't seem all that notable--not clear that it merits its own article. dbtfz^talk 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't resist BJAODNing this. Hope the ORBs don't beat me up. dbtfz^talk 07:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry we got your back.
- Changing vote: Merge to newly created Hmong gangs. dbtfz ^talk 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep unfortunately. Their apparent main rivals Masters of Destruction also have a page. I don't think these sorts of things are especially notable but we tend to apply media coverage criteria and street gangs attract media coverage much more readily than their scope might suggest. MLA 10:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of Destruction - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per MLA. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on media reports that turn up on Google. Edgar181 12:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article doesn't have refences when this afd closes a rouge admin *cough* like me *cough* might delete it. When recomending "keep" and citing sources located elsewhere, unless you actually cite those sources you're not providing evidence, you're stating opinion.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little bit of cleaning up, including the most obvious source.Vizjim 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding the opinion of Brenneman, there is extensive news coverage of this gang dating back to the early 90s and they do have an established presence in various states inclusing NC, CA and WI among others. If every serial killer qualifies for an article, based largely on the news coverage surrounding their crimes, why not gangs? They collectively kill a lot of people and are frequently in the news. They also have a far greater impact within defined ethnic communities.-- JJay 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point he's trying to make is that it is no use running around yelling "we have sources, we have sources!" if 1) you don't show us discussing the deletion what they are, and 2) if you don't show future readers of the article what they are. Slapping weblinks to one or more prime examples of these sources, on the other hand, is the metaphorical Good Thing. -- Saberwyn 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could do that. Of course, so could Brenneman. In fact, so could anyone who takes a gander at the top of the page where it says "credible google hits", which is a link to numerous articles discussing this gang. Those links just representing a small proportion of the news coverage. -- JJay 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. So sayeth one of the most important principles on which Wikipedia is founded. If you want this kept, you do the work. Period. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that you might want to keep something. Thanks again for the helpful link regarding the foundations and all that. Should I show you a link to IAR or can you find your own way? -- JJay 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create Hmong gangs, merge and redirect this and Masters of Destruction. See the MoD AfD for more on this thrilling debate... Deizio 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest the same thing. If the consensus is that the information in these articles is needed here, this seems the best, most concise, solution.--WilliamThweatt 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmong gangs is live, so be bold Deizio 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect does it for me.Vizjim 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn gangcruft. Eusebeus 12:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not already there to Hmong gangs and redirect. Angr/talk 15:38, 8 March 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.