Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choom gang


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Choom gang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Extremely undue weight to make an article about an informal group of Barack Obama's pot-smoking college buddies. The "news" in this case is the pot-smoking itself, which is already mentioned in the main Barack Obama article; the "gang" in itself is not notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:N. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - For several reasons. First, it's not WP:GNG-notable for an entire article. It's already mentioned in the main Obama article, with the 'article' mentioning WPBLP1E-non-notable people and events that are not covered by reliable sources. It's also an obvious coat-rack that is/will be used for the sole purpose to make an entire article about Obama's use of drugs. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete hanging out with a famous person does not make a group notable. This adds nothing to the main Obama article and will be used, as Dave Dial notes above, for WP:COATRACK. Valenciano (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia community believes that this article should be deleted, then I respect that. But let me first make some points against deletion:
 * This group has been written about as the main subject of multiple articles in credible media sources.
 * A Google search for "Choom Gang" yields many results, but no comprehensive, encyclopedia-like overview of the group.
 * The Barack Obama Wikipedia article (with the reference to the group) does not appear on the first page of Google's results in a search for "Choom Gang".
 * I made an effort to keep this article neutral. If others see it as biased, please edit it rather than deleting it.

I decided to create this article because I saw a reference to the group and didn't know what it was. So I Googled it and was surprised that there was lots of media coverage, but not a Wikipedia page. So I created one. ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I thought silly season was over. But seriously, this isn't notable enough for an article.    Hot Stop     (Talk)   20:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We're pretty straightforward here on AFD. Either we want to keep an article, or we want to delete it. Stating oppose leads to confusion as it's not necessarily clear whether you're opposing deletion or opposing the existence of the article. KTC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm too used to RMs.    Hot Stop     (Talk)   21:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per what everyone else said. In fact, destroy the article and anything that refers to it and then go all Ezekiel 25:17 on the "editor" responsible for its creation. Throw snowballs at this bloody thing, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete While "Obama would take a puff of a joint being passed around, even though it was not his turn" would make a great DYK hook, his circle of friends as a teenager isn't really an encyclopedic topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously: unnotable, undue weight, coatrack - and absurd. Seems to me to be a candidate for WP:Snow, but do what you will. Tvoz / talk 22:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Early life and career of Barack Obama. The group is not independently notable of Barack Obama, but it is a noteworthy aspect of his early life that is not currently mentioned in that article and is a likely search term.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - more election-driven POV stuff aimed at "highlighting" particular non-notable (but potentially controversial) things rather than reflecting reliable sources. Stalwart 111  02:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, whatever tiny mention this deserves is easily covered in the early life article. Shadowjams (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as undue weight.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 02:22, 28 November 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.