Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88 Boys Gang


 * 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 Delete. Mike V •  Talk  14:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

88 Boys Gang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor local gang that got arrested a couple of times. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Coverage is mainly that they exist. Nothing indicating any durable notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, i lost the origin link of it. But nevertheless, the Slut Wave Gang as well the 88 Boys Gang are involved & tied to Federal Prosecutions, only this is a fact that they are relevant to keeping (the Article(s)). Especially considering the involvement in rival ties to the Playboys gang:


 * As you can read here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/cops_bust_slut_wave/


 * "They arrested 11 alleged members and associates of the Slut Wave gang on drug and weapons charges, according to Sgt. Karl Jacobsen. Federal and state agents joined New Haven cops and the SWAT team in executing search warrants at four homes on Columbus Avenue, Rosette and Button streets, and Harding Place in Newhallville around 5 a.m."
 * AND here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/harp_probes_the_newhallville_conundrum/
 * ”They passed a rundown house on Division Street. “That’s a problem house” known for drugs and guns, Brown said. Members of the Slut Wave gang hang there.
 * Right around the corner, he said, members of the Playboys gang are staying.
 * He surprised Harp by informing her that Slut Wave originally operated out of the Hill. “I don’t understand,” he said, “why Slut Wave would move that close to the Playboys.”
 * See this case as well (Crips gang):
 * Commuting to this case: http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2012/eighteen-charged-with-narcotics-offenses-after-fbi-task-force-investigation-into-new-haven-gang-activity
 * AND Finally according to this article: http://www.segag.org/
 * A gang is a group of three or more persons who have a common identifying sign, symbole, or name who individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in, criminal activity which creates and atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
 * There is no limit to the size of these particular single sets of gangs. Some gang sets may consist of as few as three members, while others may have hundreds of individuals claiming to be members. But the most important thing i mentioned above, is that even it might appear as a local gang, is simply not an irrelevant fact they have been on focus of federal agents of the FBI. Therefor: Keep (article). -- Gary   Dee  19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And if Federal as State Agents were needed to support local police, it is not a "just small unrelevant gang" raid. Surely not. -- Gary   Dee  19:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gary, that's not how we establish notability. Perhaps you should read WP:N. The presence of federal officers or choosing to use federal charges over state have no bearing whatsoever on notability. Please use a policy based argument, not WP:IHEARDOFIT.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dear, you say "we", and you think WP is yours. We isnt either WP nor ME ! I do not keep posted on articles, that are not relevant. If they dont fit in the Project, no problem delete. But i have problems with users who think (or just say) WE (or WII) and think that all others "stand behind" the WE (or WII), and you think you are Superman. You certainly do not work for the Project, the way YOU handle WE. You do not UNDERSTAND: English, GERMANm FRENcH, SWEDISH, and LUXEMBURGISH, but yoe (you) use "WE (or WII), and want to know better. However you do not, and never will. And when you say "we" it sounds like you came out of uterus, into the WP-Project. But you did not ! And never will. Have conversations, and God Bless You, and me and the United Staes. And distinctive learnig is a must in life, just because it IS Short. Never Forget that Thanks for your appreciation. ABC ! -- Gary   Dee  20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gary: Please assume good faith. Due to the egalitarian, cooperative nature of Wikipedia, it is quite common for editors to refer to the project in first person plural: "We" do this, "our" policies say that. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Coverage given is weak. Unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to support a sufficiently detailed article on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - we have criteria that we use for assessing the notability of groups and organisations (WP:ORGDEPTH) and I can't see how this subject could possibly meet those criteria.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep & Delete. -- Gary   Dee  15:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gary, your !vote is both ways.....you cancel yourself out. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2014 (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.