Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFF (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   keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FFF (gang)

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

Non-notable groups that fails WP:ORG and doesn't bother to assert notability.. Would have nominated it for speedy delete except that they got talked about in a single article in Rolling Stone 23 years ago and I'm sure some admin would call that an assertion of notability. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rolling Stone magazine published a very extensive multi-paged exposé on this gang and its members (a heavily abridged, yet still multi-paged reprint of it can be found here), thus easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. That's why I created an article about it.  Additionally, the Los Angeles Times has published significant coverage on this topic  (despite the nom's claim that it lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources", that 1st LA Times article was found in the link provided by the nom above in this AfD!).  Being a unique Caucasian Los Angeles gang that has received significant coverage from very reliable sources is an assertion of notability.  A reliable source can be published 23 years ago, 2 years ago or 230 years ago and still be a valid source per WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I say notability expires? No. So stop pretending that I did. I said lack of significant coverage from multiple sources. I found the LA times abstracts. The second one was more about individuals than the gang, so I dn't count it as significant coverage of them. Nor did I say the Rolling Stone one couldn't be used....just that it was the only one cited in the article. Even that article spends a lot of time talking abotu the people, their motivations etc..... but not that much about the gang itself, so I'm not so sure that the article really helps the gangs notability as much as it would look if you don't bother to read it. It appears to me that they were more novelty than notable. That's why I brought it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By stating "single article in Rolling Stone 23 years ago" gives the impression that "23 years ago" is some kind of handicap to the source. It isn't.  In regards to the odd "Even that article spends a lot of time talking [about] the people, their motivations etc." statement, if the source didn't go in-depth about those aspects of the gang, than the coverage would be much less significant and in-depth.  The Rolling Stone article actually goes into much more detail about the origins, history and activities of the gang in addition to "the people, their motivations etc." --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And still, when I repeat that I didn't say notability expires, you feel the need to tell me that is doesn't expire again. How much more clear can I make it to you. I didn't see that much notability in the Rolling Stone article. You could substitute pretty much most generic gangs and much of it would fit. And even if I thought that article was significant coverage, that is only one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that a multi-paged in-depth article from a national and very prestigious publication about this topic, which you even admit "spends a lot of time talking [about] the people, their motivations etc.", is not significant coverage is noted, but WP:NOTABILITY doesn't agree. As it being "only one", (actually, it's two multi-paged in-depth articles about this topic), WP:NOTABILITY doesn't require more than one.  It states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And WP:ORG says sources, plural. I believe they were treated as a novelty. Had there not been a music tie in with members being part of a non-notable punk band (their article was deleted as non-notable in 2006), I highly doubt Rolling Stone would have bothered at all. It's not like the gang actually did much that was notable, especially compared to other gangs in that area. After 20+ years, you can't find anything beyond about a one year time frame and damn few at that. Oh well, let's see how the AfD goes. I don't particularly care either way, but you are clearly taking this very personal.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP:ORG doesn't trump WP:NOTABILITY. It's the opposite.  Secondly, there are two multi-paged sources about this topic (you keep ignoring this) which currently makes it plural anyway.  Your opinion/blind speculation of why Rolling Stone choose to do a major exposé on this topic has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG, says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sourceS...". That letter s at the end source sources means plural, as in more than one. So I'm not sure where you get this idea that "WP:NOTABILITY doesn't require more than one". It goes on to say that if it meets this "by consensus" it is "usually worthy" for inclusion. So do me a couple of favors: Stop misrepresenting GNG and stop acting like it is a drop-dead issue that isn't allowed to be discussed. And while you keep repeating "multi-page" ad nasuem, you gloss over the fact that while technically correct, it is because the article is in a column format and the space is just foudn where ever. This is obvious from the link you provided. My "opinion/blind speculation" is allowed here. That is how consensus is arrived at...by editors giving opinions. I'm sorry that you are so annoyed at the fact that someone disagrees with you or that someone would have the audacity to nominate an article you wrote, but such is life. And other editors do feel that criteria like WP:ATHLETE, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ORG should be looked at first because they deal more directly with the topics at hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Firstly, there are at least two in-depth very significant sourceS about this topic.  Secondly, WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Both these points you have completely ignored.  If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG to require more than one source, you need to make your case at WP:NOTABILITY's talk page and not attempt to change it in a specific AfD.  But again, there are already sourceS so we don't know why you keep demanding more than one source when there is already more than one significant source provided.  In regards to the "After 20+ years, you can't find anything beyond about a one year time frame and damn few at that" statement (odd that you kept repeating that you didn't say notability expires, not to mention admitted there are sources), a topic could have received significant in-depth coverage in a one-year time frame 200 years ago and still pass WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you intentionally trying to mislead? You're back to this claim that I'm saying notability expires? I'm saying if they were that notable, usually there'd be more coverage than a short time frame. It's not like this is somethig that just happened and there hasn't been time for the media to cover it. Two decades and they've pretty much ignored it except for the local paper and one magazine. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides Rolling Stone being a national publication and the Los Angeles Times being one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US, there has never been any kind of "banning" of local reliable sources as evidence of notability. (Actually, the Chicago Tribune, which isn't local to Los Angeles, also did a profile of this gang )--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the first I saw of the Chicago Tribune one. Thanks for the link. Regardless of the size or prestige of the LA Times, it is still the local paper for them. Local papers carry local news. That's a given. We're just not going to see eye to eye. Let's agree to disagree and just let the AfD take its course. I personally won't lose a minute of sleep one way or another if it is kept or deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to not accept local sources as evidence of notability, no matter how in-depth and significant the coverage of a given topic from those sources are, you are free to make your case at Wikipedia talk:Notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh....whatever man.......If you're so damn certain about it, then why are you wasting so much time defending it. This should be an easy keep when it closes if this is how you say. Or is it just personal for you now? Don't bother, that was rhetorical. I'm done talking with you. Enjoy playing the sound of one hand clapping. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you are the nom and throwing up misleading statements about WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG (like multiple sources are required) or arguments that have nothing to do with our guidelines, they need to be called on. I could ask you if you're so certain about this AfD, "then why are you wasting so much time defending it?"  I'm sorry you're offended so much that you feel need to make a personal attack.  --Oakshade (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: See Oakshade - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – In addition to what's already mentioned, there is also a New York Times article that discusses this gang in several paragraphs; I've added that reference. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There isn't a huge amount, but the sources are significant: Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Associated Press/Chicago Tibune, and Los Angeles Times... and local coverage in Los Angeles, California is a bit different than local coverage in Mayberry, North Carolina. Besides, when the Weekly World News writes about them, they must be notable. (BTW, FFF mentioned in another LATimes article about white youth gangs: .) Location (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (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.