Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Camorra


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Nouniquenames (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Brooklyn Camorra

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Typical case of violation of WP:NOR. There were Camorra groups in Brooklyn but there never was a Brooklyn Camorra as an organisation. Sources are quoted wrongly or are unreliable. - DonCalo (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Different Camorra gangs existed and they are sometimes refered to as "Brooklyn Camorra" groups, as is discussed in The Origin of Organized Crime in America: The New York City Mafia, 1891-1931. However, it is problematic -- and this is where it is violating WP:NOR -- to simplify this to Brooklyn Camorra implying there was a unified Camorra group. The New York based Camorra had two bases: the Neapolitan Navy Street gang and the Neapolitan Coney Island gang, as is discussed here (the site Gangrule basically the same source as the book quoted above; one of the more reliable sources on the issue). - DonCalo (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Article has been adapted to address concerns raised here and has been moved to Camorra in New York. Request for deletion withdrawn. - DonCalo (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)



Like I said before the relisting the reasons given in the deletion nomination are addressed by editing, and the nomination is withdrawn by the nominator. - DonCalo (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep better title for article.--Vic49 (talk)  00:56, 16 July 2012 (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.