Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CT Coalition


 * 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 . east. 718 at 00:21, 11/4/2007

CT Coalition

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unverifiable Sydney based street gang. Longhair\talk 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Longhair\talk 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. Entirely non-notable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment i dont see how we can verify this as street gangs are not official groups.CTCO 00:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: Completely unverifiable with reliable secondary sources; short existence of gang limits notability; reads like a vanity page; creator's username highly indicative of conflict of interest. Guidelines for speedy delete provide a fairly good summary. ObfuscatePenguin 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable references, therefore not notable. I disagree about a speedy delete. It doesn't fit into one of the categories. Assize 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Speedy deletion criteria A7 - "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." A gang is surely a group of people and this article surely fails to establish significance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. The article asserts that the alleged gang has a "strong reputation" and is "perhaps the most notorious gang on the South-West Side of Sydney". I'd love to see some notable references for these claims. As an aside, what a pointless criteria. So now, we are going to have every article start with xxx is notable because..... Assize 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is relevant, but an article for the leader of the gang was recently created: Henson Zhang. VivioFa  teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 08:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just speedy deleted that article. It was a one liner with no supporting references. -- Longhair\talk 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:HOAX. No secondary sources are provided and a newspaper archive search reveals no mentions of any such gang. This casts serious doubt on the claims of "special significance to Law Enforcement" and "the most notorious gang in southwest Sydney". The statement that the "gang" has a large Leumeah cell "the name of which is unknown" does not imply a very high profile for the organisation. Even if the "gang" is genuine the entire article is original research, especially the history section referring to the flurry of name changes due to "online gaming/nerd" concerns. The constant changing of the names of the leaders suggests the authors of the article are simply making it up as they go along. Plus, the assertion that members of "the most notorious gang in southwest Sydney" were recruited through the online MUD Runescape? Somewhere in a school in Campbelltown there's a 15 year old having a laugh at Wikipedia's expense. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Euryalus 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not a member of this gang but just live out in Cambell Town, the area that CT Coalition rule. To me all the facts seem to match up from what I have heard about them. Personally I think this article shouldn't be deleted.-.poonqwerty
 * Comment Welcome to Wikipedia, Poonqwerty. The trouble with this article is that there are no reliable sources, which are a requirement of the notability guideline. while the facts might match up with what you've heard, this is original research which is not enough to support the inclusion of the article. Euryalus 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Longhair how come you keep changing the article you dont know anything about CT Coalition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio_cabanossi (talk • contribs)
 * I'm reinserting the AfD notice which is being removed time and time again, as well as the unreferenced notice. I don't need to know anything of the subject to ensure those remain in place until the issues with the article are fixed. -- Longhair\talk 07:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Be Reasonable You guys, let's be reasonable here, sure there are a few patchy areas of this article, but is there really a need to delete the whole entire thing?. Wikipedia is free to be edited, so edit the page if you have anything to contribute, but just don't delete for the sole reason that one piece of information is unreliable. As for the lack of references, what kind of references are there for this type of article? Gang historys are passed down by word of mouth, and as a resident of the Campbell Town area, and a previous member of CT, i can assure you that all of the information is reliable. James dil 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If only one piece of information in the article was unverifiable it could be removed. The problem is the entire article is unverifiable. A review of the edit history shows that the aticle creator(s) keep changing key statements of "fact" in the article such as the names of the "leaders". This suggests a startling lack of confidence in the accuracy of the material by the very people who created it. The major claims of the article would inevitably have sources if they were true, but none can be provided despite extensive searching. The minor claims are original research at best. Euryalus 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, most of the article is unverifiable, and what might perhaps be verified, isn't. Lankiveil 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Speedy delete as per WP:ORG. Does not return any Google searches apart from the Wikipedia page (removing results with 'Connecticut' in title - see here) so it is obviously non-notable. Auroranorth (sign) 09:31, 2 November 2007 (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.