Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional gangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the most part original research. Full of non-notable listcruft and better served by Category:Fictional gangs. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-encyclopedic for the most part. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial and crufty. WP:OR and WP:ITEXISTS, sure, there are fictional gangs, but they're not necessarily notable. By the way, @Zxcvbnm:, WP:TNT says to "blow it up and start over", implying it is notable, but just poorly written. That's not what you mean, right? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed that part of my rationale, it was put in by mistake. I agree it should just be deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is a worthless essay. WP:CLN is a proper guideline which tells us that 'the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists'. And of course, the topic passes WP:LISTN because entire books are written about this such as Youth Gangs in Literature. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep vote is garbage vote by known keepist, and should be ignored. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT. » Shadowowl | talk 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a completely inappropriate and insubstantial comment. This is not how we discuss, and Andrew D., regardless of your disagreement with him, did far more to explain how what he cited applied than you did with your WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as complement to category per WP:CLN and as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP, and there are clearly enough entries with articles to merit a list regardless of whether editors decide that only notable entries should be included (not a concern for this AFD to resolve). The nomination is also contrary to WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, complaining of what the content is "for the most part" or of other fixable problems. We do not delete content because it includes flaws (even assuming that is a correct assertion here), nor do we delete lists just because they currently include entries that some editors think they should not (again, the non-notable entry issue need not be resolved here). We should not be nominating content for deletion if we are unwilling or unable to consider its potential. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• One more observation...nominations like this essentially try to turn CLN upside down. It's not necessary to make a special case for why we'd have a list as well as a category. But if you're going to argue that a list should be deleted even though the category is fine, you do need to go out of your way to explain why the two should be treated differently, while remembering that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the !votes of Andrew D. and Postdlf. It's not "original research" in any meaningful sense to note major characters, plot elements and features of setting. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though the page could use stricter inclusion criteria; the gang should at least be mentioned on the linked page to the fictional work it is from. (if The Simpsons actually have a prison gang called the "Sunday Funnies", it's probably a one-line gag). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 16 August 2018 (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.