Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brindle family


 * 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. This was a very difficult call on my part. In most cases, discussions like this merit being closed as "no consensus." However, given the BLP issues, it's best to err on the side of caution and delete. Blueboy96 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Brindle family

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Without referencing (the sole reference doesn't work) this is a blatant WP:BLP violation against both families mentioned. Even with referencing, I'm not convinced it would meet our notability standards.  – iride  scent   23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. No valid references, BLP violation. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged for speedy deletion as an unsourced attack page. Alexius08 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite Plenty of coverage. BBC The Independent The Independent again and again and again. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep according to the references just listed. They could have been found at the start. So many of our crime articles are done very carelessly, but they should l be checked and sourced,, not nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator obviously didn't make an effort to find an alternative link for the given source, check somewhere that it actually exists or try finding other sources from different publications. All violations of WP:BEFORE. Deletion is a last resort and should only be applied when sources can't be found. Not when they're not in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. There are sources for individual members of the family being alleged to be criminals; there is no source for the family being a criminal organisation other than insinuations. Going through all the sources given above, this and this are about a member of the family as a victim of crime; this is about one member of the family being murdered, and another two members of the family being acquitted of criminal offences, while this is a cut-and-paste from this, which does tangentially mention this family ("Bermondsey and Rotherhithe: Traditional base for largely white crime gangs with big interests in drugs. The Brindle family and Arifs have fought turf wars here for a decade."). Aside from that brief tangential mention in an article on an unrelated matter, there is nothing in any of the sources you've provided connecting any member of this family with criminal activity, other than as victims of crime or as defendants who were found not guilty. –  iride scent  12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - As iridescent pointed out, the sources do not support the claim that the family is a crime family. There are no details on any alleged crimes they may have committed, no coverage of the family itself in the context of a crime family, only trivial mention. This does not meet the requirement of coverage in multiple reliable sources, and without said details, there's no claim to notability. Per WP:BLP, this article needs to go. Should have been speedied as an attack page. لenna  vecia  12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates WP:SYNTH (per Iridescent) as well as WP:BLP (per reading the article and seeing how unbalanced it is). Per Jennevecia, should have been speedied. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not one of the sources supports that the family is a "criminal organisation". Had Pascal not declined a speedy, I would delete it now. Kevin (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The tabloid Evening Standard article here (registration required) says "Roads was convicted of acting as an armourer for Michael Boyle, a former terrorist hitman who was brought to Britain from Dublin to carry out the contract killing of Anthony Brindle, a leading member of a south London crime family engaged in a bloody turf war." --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That article is here in a no-registration-required version. Again, this is about a member of this family as a victim of crime. –  iride scent   13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * strong delete. Although one article says they had a "turf war", what handful of other WP:RS they are sees the Brindles as the victims of crime.  Even if they are a criminal gang, they're not high profile enough to be notable.  They would just be one of the thousands of dodgy families that exist.  We don't even know the extent of their 'crimes'- this seems partly like an attack page.  At the most, this should be merged into an article on london gangs or whatever; but a family is not a gang.  This delete is a matter of decency towards them as living persons. Sticky Parkin 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment iridescent  asked me to take another look, but after careful re-reading I continue to find the BBC article quite sufficient to prove the material in the article. "The background to the shooting involved a long-standing "feud" between the Brindles and another family, the court heard. In 1991 Mr Brindle's brother, David, was shot dead by two masked men in a pub. In 1994 his brother George was hit with several shots from a handgun fired in the street by an assailant." That's connection enough.  The Telegraph article seems unavailable, but the G News Archive summary is "He was also close to a Turkish family called Arif, who had held sway as the number one criminal gang in south London for more than two decades until the early 1990s, when a number of the brothers who made up the clan found themselves variously convicted of drugs and robbery offences. In March 1991, Abdullah was shot dead in a William Hill betting shop in Walworth. Anthony Brindle and his brother, Patrick, were charged with his murder and later acquitted at the Old Bailey." I am aware of the nature of UK tabloids--I have frequently been unwilling to sustain BLP articles sourced only to them.  I would not have said keep except for these two articles. DGG (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But again, the first story you mention is of members of the family as victims, not perpetrators of crimes; the second makes it clear that although members of the Brindle family were accused of crimes, they were acquitted. Nobody so far has found a single source for any member of this family being found guilty of any crime, even at unpaid-parking-fine level, let alone a serious offence; for an article whose first sentence is "The Brindle family is a criminal organization", that seems woefully inadequate. – iride  scent   18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Arifs (gang), as they are known primarily for the violence associated with their feud with this much more notable gang. I don't see any historical significance for this gang, so merge. Rd232 talk 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think a merge or rename is in order, if anything. I can see the start of one article which alleges stuff against the Brindles, but most of the coverage is about the crimes of the Daleys. Sticky Parkin 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, not nearly enough good sourcing for WP:BLP. We can't call them a "crime family" or "gang" unless those terms are specifically used by reliable sources and I see no evidence of that here. Absent that, I don't see any basis for an article at all. *** Crotalus *** 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "underworld family"? Rd232 talk


 * 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.