Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culver City Boys 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Culver City Boys 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Completely non-notable organization, all references are in passing, plagued with original research issues, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons I have outlined as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I'm not into the subject, but judging from the article, it sports with 15 references (badly formatted, but they are references), most of which look pretty reliable — publications and news clips from local or state newspapers and magazines, review articles from big web resources that seem to specialize in that kind of information, etc. I don't know about the notability (do we have special notability rules for street gangs?), but judging from references, article seems to be pretty solid and well-founded. --GreyCat (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. hardly notable. Manitobamountie (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Major gang that's been around for many years. Google News Archive and Google Books for "Culver City Boys", "Culver City Boyz", "The Culver City Gang", and "Culver City 13" show dozens of references. The 13, for those who don't know, isn't a numbered part of a larger organization, but is added to show Sureño affiliation. Many Latin gangs in southern CA show an 'M' or a number '13'. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Many gangs do attach the number 13 to their name, but what makes this one in particular notable? Specifically, what reliable sources provide non-trivial coverage about this organization? (Answer: none.) JBsupreme (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you didn't do any of the Googling I suggested. Found articles in multiple newspapers, interviews with police and reporters about them, including non-LA area media such as the New York Times, there were books, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite what the hell you're talking about, specifically, for the rest of the class. Please. Pretty please. JBsupreme (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite what the hell you're talking about, specifically, for the rest of the class. Please. Pretty please. JBsupreme (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you didn't do any of the Googling I suggested. Found articles in multiple newspapers, interviews with police and reporters about them, including non-LA area media such as the New York Times, there were books, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Many gangs do attach the number 13 to their name, but what makes this one in particular notable? Specifically, what reliable sources provide non-trivial coverage about this organization? (Answer: none.) JBsupreme (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There are some sources for this gang. Specifically, The NY Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, LA Times, as well as other LA Times articles, using a Google News Archive search. These sources are not trivial. The NY Times devotes most of the article about this gang. The other two sources are behind pay walls, but their titles imply that most of the articles is about the gang. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard. Those sources are definitely not trivial and searching Lexis Nexis turns up 43 sources, most of which are relevant and non-trivial too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Cunard's sources establish notability for me. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe the article can improve. The Culver 13 is one of the most popular gangs on the Westside. Agtax 02:18, 12 December 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.