Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almighty Saints


 * 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Almighty Saints
Original research, gangcruft. While this may be a legitimate gang, all of the information in the article comes from "Official gang websites" and not from other sources. As gangmembers themselves are likely writing this page and the source sites, this thus qualifies as original research. I had tagged it at one point for cleanup, the successive editors and  simply removed the tags without further edits. The first editor has only done one edit to WP, this article. The latter editor has only worked on two articles, this one and People Nation, an article which may be gang/listcruft, but at least it's not original research, as it has a valid reference. み使い Mitsukai 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC) I suggest this author then provide some links that prove the gang exists or was a part of Chicago History like: The Saints to help the people understand better. jbutera 00:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)jbutera ''The problem with the two articles is not that they're fake - I'm well aware that these gangs likely do exist (I'm not from Chicago, so I don't know). The problem is that they are both original research, and not cited for the most part (in fact, when I nominated the Almighty Saints article, it had no sources, and it wasn't until the first one was AFD'd that both articles got some sort of slap-dash citations).'' ''The websites they lead to are written by gangmembers, not news organizations, law enforcement agencies or whatever, so they can't be taken as accurate, even if they likely are. As an extreme example, someone could write on one of those pages that "We have nuclear weapons", and there'd be no way to verify it, other than to take them at their word. That's original research, and that goes against WP:NOR, which is WP policy.'' ''If someone can actually give valid (news, law enforcement, etc.) references, that may sway the vote. But until then, my vote on it stands, and if Latin Kings isn't fixed in another week, I'm going to recommend that article for AFD as well.''
 * Article was recently blanked by 70.225.237.242. --Hetar 20:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. --Ezeu 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Gang life is a real in this world; don’t just put it in the back burner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samtron (talk • contribs) 14 March 2006.
 * Delete, nn-gang. Stifle 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep what is the Difference between this page and the Latin Kings page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.221.242 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Frankly, that one is close to gangcruft as well, as the vast majority of it is unverified and original research. It hasn't been AFD'd because 1. it's got a legitmate link, unlike the above article, and 2. I wasn't aware of its existence.  Bear in mind that now that you've mentioned it, it will probably be looked at and some editor may decide to put it up for AFD as well.--み使い Mitsukai 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Gang life is a real in Chicago. As for what I know about the Roman Saints, or the later the Saints, the author has taken great pain in putting together the history of a club where there wasn't a lot of references.  Considering that Wikipedia allowed someone to refer to the Hells Angels as a motorcycle Gang verses a MC Club, I think the Saints entry has a lot of merit. Unless Wikipedia wants to eliminate the history of gangs altogether - which means Al Capone, John Gotti, and any organized crime must be deleted, I think gangs are a big part of American History. PS: There are people who are interested in gangs and study them, plain and simple, and are not gang members.151.198.117.251 06:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)151.198.117.251 18:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)jbutera
 * Keep. This gang is real and the article probably just needs to be cleaned up. Not sure why people think this is a hoax when the Chicago Tribune did a feature on the gang and its history in 1998 -- JJay 03:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't recall anyone saying it was a hoax. What the charge is that it is original research, which is a different problem altogether.--み使い Mitsukai 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the comments on this page. Other than that, large swathes of the article are confirmed by the TRib and I think there are other good sources available. -- JJay 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am reposting what I mentioned to Jbutera on his talk page:
 * It's been a few days since, and I have yet to see any real change on either article, despite others stating that it's all verifiable, even from the Tribune, as you say. If that is the case, then citations need to be made, not just slapping an article from the web as has been done with both articles.  I have no problem with gang pages being on WP if they're notable.  I do have a problem with the original research.  If an editor is calling it a hoax, it's not because (s)he doesn't know, it's because there's nothing to back it up.--み使い Mitsukai 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I just discovered this AfD last night and it took me just five minutes to find the Trib feature. Why didn't you post the Trib feature? Why didn't you correct the two editors on this page who followed your lead and called this gang a hoax? Why didn't you leave a message on the article talk page asking for more references? Did you even try to find references for the article yourself? Its very easy to call something OR when you know nothing about the subject and then refuse any that are provided. Lastly, where is the proof for the bizarre, and borderline slanderous accusations that "gangmembers" are writing this article (not that it even matters)?-- JJay 13:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' kingboyk 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep & work with it Needs work, possible cutting of OR, and better verification, but this is a case for the cleanup squad, not AfD. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep still problems with OR so still some further cleanup required despite the addition of some sources. Also I'm further concerned re notability - is this really a notable group of people?  A google search for "almighty saints" gang doesn't throw up too many responses.  I have a lot of sympathy for Mitsukai's position and it's only my lack of context to compare notability of minor gangs that makes me lean away from delete.  On the subject of gangs, it is right to be cautious about fansite style references and if I had come across the article, I may well have AfD'd it myself as a google search for "almighty saints" doesn't throw up a promising start as Southampton football club dominate the early hits. MLA 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The print citation seems to address some questions of verifiability.  If it's stripped down, I think there'll still be a reasonable amount of meat left. -Colin Kimbrell 14:54, 22 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.