Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Masters of Destruction: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:22, 6 March 2006 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:06, 9 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(34 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''no consensus'''. ] 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
Article currently totally ] Google news shows and vanilla google shows to indicate they are encyclopedic outside being one of over twenty gangs mentioned in Delete. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Article currently totally ] Google news shows and vanilla google shows to indicate they are encyclopedic outside being one of over twenty gangs mentioned in Delete. - ]]] 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', unless sources are cited. --]]</font>]] 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', unless sources are cited. --]]]] 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' not notable -- ] 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' not notable -- ] 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*Gang is mentioned gang identification website, local news comment piece, reputable local newspaper, and generally all over Google search]. They are real and like the hilariously inadequate ] they should be ‘’’kept’’’, but the copy should be edited mercilessly. ] 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *Gang is mentioned gang identification website, local news comment piece, reputable local newspaper, and generally all over Google search]. They are real and like the hilariously inadequate ] they should be '''kept''', but the copy should be edited mercilessly. ] 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Vizjim. ] 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' per Vizjim. ] 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete''' this pathetic nonsense. Today seems to be GangCruft day. It's an ''encyclopedia'' folks.</s> ] 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Not totally understanding your logic there, ]. This encyclopaedia contains information on many topics. Why should verifiable gangs not be included? This information could well be of use to researchers in the future.] 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::What makes them noteworthy? We're not talking the Crips or Bloods here. Existence does not equal notability. Nothing in the article is verified. Of your poorly presented "sources" we have something called "gangsorus" which I am not convinced is verifiable media coverage, an article from the Sacramento Bee with the line: "He worked as a cook at Burger King and ran with MOD (Masters of Destruction), a Hmong gang whose influence has spread from California to the Carolinas." and another local paper which merely mentions the name of this gang in a long list of gang names. The Sacramento Bee article is undated, but from quotes like "..is scheduled to return home by 2002" and the 1999 data in the included grapic we can also surmise that this is not recent media coverage. Please familiarize yourself with WP source, citation, general style and ''especially'' notability guidelines. I would also recommend you improve the article instead of blowing hot air on the AfD vote. The ''indiscriminate'' extension of the "Fresno Bulldog Gangs" ] is not, IMO, a desirable road to go down. ] 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Now, now, no need to be rude. This really isn't that important an issue, surely? I have tried my (limited) best to improve the article already, as well as "blowing hot air", a phrase for which there seems to be little need. If you care so passionately about this, well, crikey, I'll just walk away. My understanding is that non-notability is a point of view issue and not necessarily grounds for deletion.] 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Non-notability is '''exactly''' the determiner of retention or deletion. Everything else including content, style, popularity, tastefulness etc. is secondary. If you thought the "blowing hot air" comment was rude, I apologise. Then again we are discussing an article about people who apparently commit forced rapes, violent thefts and lots more non kitten-and-bunny-stroking related activities. ] 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Not entirely true. As I understand it, ], and obscurity is not necessarily a deletion criterion. See page. In this case, a gang operating over several states, for whatever reason, seems to me a sufficient phenomenon to be worth recording. The article could do with a clean-up, but not deletion.(Oh, on the rudeness thing, apology accepted.)] 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Sweet. But what is not entirely true? I didn't say anything about obscurity and could not agree more that Wiki is not paper. I said "Non-notability is '''exactly''' the determiner of retention or deletion". That's a fact. An article can be about an obscure, tasteless or useless subject, as long as it passes the ''notability'' criteria. You've quoted ] but I think you could give it another once over. ] 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I can't believe that I need to recommend this to an experienced editor such as yourself, but maybe you should check the Deletion policy? Non-notability is not a core determiner of retention or deletion, and, as the notability page establishes, it is controversial whether it should ever be such a criterion. Therefore in the case of a gang which has been the cause of multiple serious assaults (and is therefore notable to the person who created this article, researchers into Hmong immigrant experience, researchers into gangs at the turn of the millenium, etc), I'm surprised to see you mention it as your core reason for voting a certain way. That said, it seems a good compromise to '''merge''' and '''redirect'''. By the way, you might also want to take a wee glance at (]). Oh, and maybe think about the reasons why people might offer arguments and votes on an AfD without having the core knowledge necessary to improve an article.] 09:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:*I missed the meeting where "Non-notability is not a core determiner of retention or deletion" became policy, truly I did. Look up and down the AfD page and tell me how often you see the word (non) notable and the abbreviation "nn". ] is an essay, not a policy or guideline. And get outta here with the WP:CIVIL stuff, this is about the tamest discussion I've been involved in. Finally you can thank me for sorting out this little episode by creating the ] page, we're past this now. ] 10:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
*::], which is what I was pointing you towards, does not list notability as a core criterion for deletion. However many times it is used on the AfD pages, it is still not the official policy of Misplaced Pages to limit itself to what its most vocal users find acceptable. ] 12:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' Misplaced Pages is not a police database. ] 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. A real gang, frequently in the news, particuarly in Wisconsin, for murder and other mayhem. Definitely deserves inclusion here. -- ] 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:*That's more like it. Jjay, your cleanup of the article and inclusion of sources which back up these claims will be a shining example to Vizjim. Thanks in advance. ] 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I missed the part where I have to clean up articles to please people who use terms like "''pathetic nonsense''" or ''"cruft"''. If you need help editing, try ]. Also see ] . -- ] 19:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:*Hmm. I would prefer it if people could back up their claims of notability with facts and sources JJ. That's all. The article doesn't really have any right now, you see. If they are "frequently in the news", why did Brenneman have so little luck in his googling? If your vote came from a new editor it would look like sockpuppety. As for my earlier comments they related to the article when I first saw it and the available info at the time. ] 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:* '''Further comment'''. To help ] add sources to the article, I thought he might want to start with these related to Wisconsin/Minnesota cases . -- ] 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::*As JJay is presumably well aware, that link leads to headlines and the full content is subscription only, hence not really useful for linking. However I have found some recent press coverage and linked accordingly. I'm satisfied there is notability here but am voting to '''create "]"''', then '''merge and redirect''' this article, ] (also currently an AfD) and allow scope for the addition of others without ending up here again. My annoyance with editors who consistently vote to keep articles but show no interest in, knowledge of or willingness to save such articles remains undimmed. ] 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per ]. There is plenty of precedent for articles on notable street gangs. (See ].) And this gang is clearly notable. For example, the '']'' refers to it as "". ]] 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
**'''Merging''' to a newly created ] article would be OK, too. ]] 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' not notable. And what are ''forced rapes'' anyway - theres some other kind? ] 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep and cleanup''' per Vizjim and JoshuaZ ] 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per well argued nomination. ]]]] 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' anything not already there to ] and '''redirect'''. ]/<small>'']''</small> 15:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 15:06, 9 March 2023

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 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Masters of Destruction

Article currently totally uncited. Google news shows one hit and vanilla google shows nothing to indicate they are encyclopedic outside being one of over twenty gangs mentioned in a local paper. Delete. - brenneman 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not totally understanding your logic there, Deizio. This encyclopaedia contains information on many topics. Why should verifiable gangs not be included? This information could well be of use to researchers in the future.Vizjim 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What makes them noteworthy? We're not talking the Crips or Bloods here. Existence does not equal notability. Nothing in the article is verified. Of your poorly presented "sources" we have something called "gangsorus" which I am not convinced is verifiable media coverage, an article from the Sacramento Bee with the line: "He worked as a cook at Burger King and ran with MOD (Masters of Destruction), a Hmong gang whose influence has spread from California to the Carolinas." and another local paper which merely mentions the name of this gang in a long list of gang names. The Sacramento Bee article is undated, but from quotes like "..is scheduled to return home by 2002" and the 1999 data in the included grapic we can also surmise that this is not recent media coverage. Please familiarize yourself with WP source, citation, general style and especially notability guidelines. I would also recommend you improve the article instead of blowing hot air on the AfD vote. The indiscriminate extension of the "Fresno Bulldog Gangs" walled garden is not, IMO, a desirable road to go down. Deizio 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, now, no need to be rude. This really isn't that important an issue, surely? I have tried my (limited) best to improve the article already, as well as "blowing hot air", a phrase for which there seems to be little need. If you care so passionately about this, well, crikey, I'll just walk away. My understanding is that non-notability is a point of view issue and not necessarily grounds for deletion.Vizjim 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Non-notability is exactly the determiner of retention or deletion. Everything else including content, style, popularity, tastefulness etc. is secondary. If you thought the "blowing hot air" comment was rude, I apologise. Then again we are discussing an article about people who apparently commit forced rapes, violent thefts and lots more non kitten-and-bunny-stroking related activities. Deizio 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely true. As I understand it, Misplaced Pages is not paper, and obscurity is not necessarily a deletion criterion. See Notability page. In this case, a gang operating over several states, for whatever reason, seems to me a sufficient phenomenon to be worth recording. The article could do with a clean-up, but not deletion.(Oh, on the rudeness thing, apology accepted.)Vizjim 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Sweet. But what is not entirely true? I didn't say anything about obscurity and could not agree more that Wiki is not paper. I said "Non-notability is exactly the determiner of retention or deletion". That's a fact. An article can be about an obscure, tasteless or useless subject, as long as it passes the notability criteria. You've quoted WP:N but I think you could give it another once over. Deizio 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe that I need to recommend this to an experienced editor such as yourself, but maybe you should check the Deletion policy? Non-notability is not a core determiner of retention or deletion, and, as the notability page establishes, it is controversial whether it should ever be such a criterion. Therefore in the case of a gang which has been the cause of multiple serious assaults (and is therefore notable to the person who created this article, researchers into Hmong immigrant experience, researchers into gangs at the turn of the millenium, etc), I'm surprised to see you mention it as your core reason for voting a certain way. That said, it seems a good compromise to merge and redirect. By the way, you might also want to take a wee glance at (WP:Civil). Oh, and maybe think about the reasons why people might offer arguments and votes on an AfD without having the core knowledge necessary to improve an article.Vizjim 09:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I missed the meeting where "Non-notability is not a core determiner of retention or deletion" became policy, truly I did. Look up and down the AfD page and tell me how often you see the word (non) notable and the abbreviation "nn". WP:N is an essay, not a policy or guideline. And get outta here with the WP:CIVIL stuff, this is about the tamest discussion I've been involved in. Finally you can thank me for sorting out this little episode by creating the Hmong gangs page, we're past this now. Deizio 10:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's more like it. Jjay, your cleanup of the article and inclusion of sources which back up these claims will be a shining example to Vizjim. Thanks in advance. Deizio 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I would prefer it if people could back up their claims of notability with facts and sources JJ. That's all. The article doesn't really have any right now, you see. If they are "frequently in the news", why did Brenneman have so little luck in his googling? If your vote came from a new editor it would look like sockpuppety. As for my earlier comments they related to the article when I first saw it and the available info at the time. Deizio 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. To help Deiz add sources to the article, I thought he might want to start with these related to Wisconsin/Minnesota cases . -- JJay 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As JJay is presumably well aware, that link leads to headlines and the full content is subscription only, hence not really useful for linking. However I have found some recent press coverage and linked accordingly. I'm satisfied there is notability here but am voting to create "Hmong gangs", then merge and redirect this article, Oriental Ruthless Boys (also currently an AfD) and allow scope for the addition of others without ending up here again. My annoyance with editors who consistently vote to keep articles but show no interest in, knowledge of or willingness to save such articles remains undimmed. Deizio 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


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.