Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almighty Gaylords


 * 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 (keep) (1d, 2k, 1a) with one sock-puppet voting discounted. This afd should not be held as a reason against a second nomination at some future time, as there was limited participation, and sock-puppeteering. --Scimitar parley 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Almighty Gaylords
Not convinced this gang is notable. "Almighty Gaylords" (including quotes) garners only 221 hits on google, 95% of which are just keyword spamming and completely out of context. Starry Eyes 23:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Starry Eyes  23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 23:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per nomination Joe Butera  What do I need to prove the fact that the Almighty Gaylords were around prior to the Vice Lords? I have a newspaper article which is copyright March 3, 1954, but I cannot publish it without permission from the Chicago Tribune. I see a simuliar article pertaining to the Motorcycle Club - The Hells Angels - which I see as a biased opinion against the motercycle club. I will accept all opinions and concerns. I am not on Wikipedia to be a tyrant! Starry, if you think that the Gaylords are a myth, go back to the page and click on the external links concerning gang research for Chicago. In the section on Latino gangs, Latino Gang beginnings which states half way down that the Gaylords were around in the 1930s and 1940s, the only white gang listed. (UTC)
 * It's not that they don't exist, the question is are they notable and well known enough in the greater community to deserve an article. The Hells Angels is one of your given examples - they should remain because worldwide, if you drop the term "Hells Angels", most people will know what you're talking about. Saberwyn 04:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all Mr. Butera, much as I like your choice of font, you clearly have a vested interest in the article (since you're the only one who has made contributions to it, and it is one of your few contributions to Wikipedia), and thus you should say so up front. Second, I am not doubting the the existence of the gang, and I am not saying they are a myth. The point is that they are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.


 * I copied your font. Yes, I am new to the forum. Yes, I do not have many, if any, other contributions to the forum. I hope that you took the time to look up the references that I added to this discussion. If so, you would see that the Gaylords are more than Chicago related spam, but a well known street gang. The research I have done has been used by U of I - Chicago and the Gang Research foundation. I was following the guidelines that I saw being used by another gang related entry - the Insane Popes. Included in the Insane Pope entry, the Gaylords were given credit as the largest white Chicago street gang. I hope that this debate is about the content and not bias against street gang material on this forum, because street gangs are a part of US history whether we want to accept it or not. The fact that a book Lords of Lawndale and a documentary Documentary would give the subject matter some kind of credibility. Much respect to yourself and others either way! User:jbutera Joe Butera  04:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete gaylord.We are alive and well.Ask any adult Chicagoan,born,raised here and they'll tell you what a gaylord is.Hey Saberwyn,appreciate your opinion,but just what is your true motivation?player712 www.gaylords712.com   Hey Starry eyes, I also appreciate your opinion but the Records page needs your attention. Joe Butera,Good Job.We'll see to it Gaylords stays put.The point is The Gang is "notable eneugh" for inclusion in an encyclopedia.Apparently Mr.Butera & I are'nt the only ones that think so ,considering GAYLORD was included prior to our "contribution".
 * What do I need to do to get this page up to standards? I made a few changes, but trying to defend against the name being spam is a matter of opinion at best. I feel the fact that a book and a documentary, and my links proving these facts, prove that the Gaylords were a significant part of Chicago gang History.User:jbutera Joe Butera 04:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete this after I just found it?! No way. I grew up in Chicago in the sixities, and the Gaylords were a part of the street scene no matter where you went. Now that I'm forced to be an adult, and have to travel for a living, it's amazing the number of people I come into contact with who are interested in "Greaser" culture, and who are aware of the Gaylords as purveyors of same.
 * Keep.

Please, you have to look at this in the context of the times, and through the same lens as those who would be searching for them. Certainly, a word as common as "gaylord" will have numerous hits in any search, but then, most any word that isn't inherently exclusive will. The Gaylords, whether viewed from California or Chicago, are simply iconic. To delete them because of a misperception that they aren't universally known would be a mistake. To equate them with the Hell's Angel's M.C. would be a mistake. No member of the Almighty Gaylords has ever been indicted or convicted of racketeering, which is a claim the H.A.M.C. can't make. I believe that what you say when you say that they don't have the same name recognition factor as the H.A.M.C. is that they aren't as infamous, aren't as titillating as the Angels are.

Let the entry stand.

Sieg 01:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable historic subject. Dystopos 22:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstaining, because I'm sick and tired of the notability-as-a-deletion-criteria debate. Until a definite set of regs concerning notability are provided, I'm removing myself from any debates where I support the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point of view as a reason for deletion. Saberwyn 09:21, 31 October 2005 (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.