Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional gangs (2nd nomination)


 * 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. While I note that the improvements to the article swayed a couple of individuals who argued to delete, it did not for many others, and most arguments to delete came after they took place. Given this, the consensus is that this is not a viable subject for an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

List of fictional gangs
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is an indiscriminate, mostly unreferenced list that fails WP:GNG. The structure is an ad-hoc, messy ORish division into crime syndicates, crime families and clans, street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, and even paramilitary organizations thrown in for good measure (in other words, the structure of the article is not grounded in any academic typology of gangs and is just amateurish and chaotic fancruft). There are no inclusion criteria, and the list includes numerous gangs that are just mentioned in passing in some works. For example, I am a fan of Shadowrun RPG and I even wrote the wikia entry on Shadowrun gangs - but to my surprise, most major SR gans are not on our list but we have the random entry for https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Kingston_Machine_Posse, a topic mentioned in passing in a minor game supplement. The argument that this is some sort of navigational aid cannot be taken seriously as the vast majority of gangs mentioned here are not notable, nor do they even redirect to a notable work. The amount of possible hoaxes contained here is hard to assess. While arguably the topic of gangs in fiction may be notable, this list is IMHO not salvageable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, overly broad definition of "gang" filled with non-notable groups. Many entries from TV are from a single episode and have no basis to group together. Reywas92Talk 14:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have removed entries that don't have their own Wikipedia article. The number of those left with their own article is certainly enough to justify a navigational list.   D r e a m Focus  18:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even with the cleanup that Dream Focus already did, the vast majority of these entries actually do not have their own articles - most of the blue links simply lead to broader articles on shows/characters/episodes/etc rather than an article on the "gangs" themselves. I can certainly see the potential for an actual prose article on fictional gangs, but this actual list fails WP:LISTN, and, again, as the number of blue links still remaining is extremely misleading in showing how few of these are actually notable enough for independent articles, it is not useful as a navigational list. Rorshacma (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. Many of these entries are not even gangs, which is what happens when you create articles without any reliable third party sources. I wouldn't object to someone creating a coherent, discriminate article about one of these topics: for example, paramilitary organizations in fiction. But it would need to be written from scratch, as there is no reliable third party coverage to WP:PRESERVE from this list. In fact, there is no prose to preserve from this list at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, Dream Focus is putting in some sweat work (my dad would call it "elbow grease") to get the list into good shape. A fine topic for such a list, as fictional gangs make up quite a large genre and cultural nitch portrayed as recently as the new West Side Story remake. Worth saving. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * “Sweat of the brow” is not a keep rationale. It is, however, a reason to found an underwater city according to some people. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But it can be a keep rationale if the work involved leads to a case of WP:HEY. While I by no means want to say that the list as it is now is perfect, the changes did address and solve a major concern of the deletion nomination. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NLIST. I see one list like it, by gamesradar.com. Not even Ranker has bothered to compile one. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NLIST and the fact that this is clearly unmaintainable OR fan craft. Plus, "fictional gang" is way to general of a topic to be useful or manageable. Maybe something like List of gangs in comic books might work, but even then probably not. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate fancruft. There is no strong definition of just “gang” besides “semi-organized group of criminals”. Does that make Lagoon Company a gang, or just a delivery company whose members are criminals? Is Gorillaz a gang because Murdoc Niccals is a criminal who basically used his bandmates as henchmen at certain points? What about all the times SpongeBob and friends got together to perform crimes? Maybe a list of notable fictitious organized crime gangs would be useful as part of an article on organized crime in fiction, but not this. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks references supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But the current lack of references is not decisive for a deletion decision. It is the question if WP:LISTN can be met, because such secondary sources exist. Please see my listing of such sources below. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete One of those lists that is just better off as a category.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination says "that this is some sort of navigational aid cannot be taken seriously as the vast majority of gangs mentioned here are not notable, nor do they even redirect to a notable work". This is no longer the case after the major clean-up, so I think it qualifies as a navigational aid for those interested in the topic. As they are treated elsewhere on Wikipedia, that they are not referenced here is not a major concern, and the primary sources are given anyway. The fact that the formating may not be great is no valid grounds for deletion, because it is something that can be improved. As for the notability, at the very least we have this full PhD thesis dealing with the topic of fictional gangs. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Make an actual article on the topic then, don’t waste time with this wp:listcruft and vague claims about its “navigational” purpose (which as I’ve said before is basically a synonym for WP:ITSUSEFUL at this point). Lists are nowhere near as useful or informative as an in-depth article; they’re just easy to make and inflate to an impressive size. They should be the exception, not the norm. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, navigation is neither a vague claim nor "basically a synonym for WP:ITSUSEFUL", because the relevant Wikipedia guideline tells us navigation is one of the three main purposes lists serve here. As for a prose article, I think it would be good to have one. But how does deletion of this list bring us one iota closer towards that? So it seems to me your argument in this regard is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style does not take precedence over the relevant notability guideline. Also, Wikipedia has categories for this purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, and I did not say otherwise. But if push comes to shove, the Manual of Style as a guideline does take precedence over WP:Listcruft as an essay (though I don't think that that essay would require this list's deletion either). And I wanted to show that the purpose of navigation is not my personal opinion but grounded in the guideline. About the serious question of notability: I have already pointed out the PhD thesis, has pointed out the online article. Searching a bit more, the book Gangs and Gang Crime has an 8-page chapter about "Gangs in Fiction and Film". With these I consider WP:GNG for the topic of "fictional gangs" fullfilled, and with this also WP:LISTN for our list here. Just to cement this further, there are two books on Google where the subject appears, though I cannot see the extension of the treatment:, , as well as a number more which talk about specific instances of fictional gangs. As for "Wikipedia has categories for this purpose", another of Wikipedia's guidelines says: "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative". Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, there is also the book Youth Gangs in Literature as put forward by Andrew D. in the last deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Daranios You are confusing the possibly notable article topic gangs in fiction with the non-notable indiscriminate fancruft listicle of list of gangs in fiction. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I do: WP:N says "list topics must be notable". What's the topic of our list here? Fictional gangs! WP:LISTN says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,... notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Secondary sources discuss the topic or group of "fictional gangs"/"gangs in fiction" (plural), as discussed above. If then the topic gangs in fiction is notable, then a list of such gangs appearing on Wikipedia is covered with regard to notability based on both relevant sections of WP:N. Of course in addition we have to take care that such a list does not become indiscriminate. But the efforts of have led to only having blue links, i.e. limiting our list to fictional gangs covered on Wikipedia either in their own article or as part of the article of "a notable work", as you have put it. Daranios (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That a topic is notable doesn't mean a list of related items is. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is exactly what WP:N/WP:LISTN means. I have quoted the passages which say so. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reading. Common sense dictates that for each topic there are zillions lists we should not have. Which is why quite a few lists get deleted. Lists are not sacrosanct and need to demonstrate that they are in scope of the project. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, my reading would mean that from a notability point of view we could create one list for each topic where notability is also established for a non-list-article. But that's not yet zillions. And most topics preclude themselves. A list of Abraham Lincolns does not make any sense. A List of presidents of the United States does. And we have other criteria which prevent us from having too many lists and which lead to lists sometimes being deleted. Daranios (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But a list of all works of fiction that mention Lincoln does not, not unless you can show me that such a topic is of interest to scholars or other reliable sources (with reliable authors attempting to compile such lists). I guess that's where we differ - in absence of reliable sources with such lists, the list of works mentioning Lincoln IMHO has no place on Wikipedia. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I still feel slightly misunderstood, I'll take you up on your example: First, let's not talk about any mere mention. That would be indiscriminate and is therefore excluded by other policies. My reading of the guideline does not mean that as Abraham Lincoln is notable, so we can create a list of his appearances in fiction. But if there are secondary sources dealing with "depictions of Abraham Lincoln in fiction", then we can create such a list in accordance with WP:LISTN. And, lo and behold, such a list exists. It's simply not called "List of..." but Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. Daranios (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And it badly needs rewriting from the mostly unreferenced list format into prose. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation, I appreciate the effort. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and every time an AfD includes such good faith language it should be corrected, and hopefully all closers have the guideline tattooed on their bicep: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Randy Kryn (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Except articles still need to meet GNG. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).
 * Notability There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
 * So two places in the Notability guideline page it says you don't need to meet the GNG if you are a navigational list, which is clearly what this is.  D r e a m Focus  11:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But this is a list of X, not list of X of Y. And lists of X have to meet GNG. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.  <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Basically TNT for this unsourced FANCRUFT magnet. In what world does "Jabba the Hutt’s criminal empire" (no actual article for said "empire") belong with the Baker Street Irregulars in a directory? The practice of wikilinking real organized crime outfits here also muddies the waters further. Most of the bluelinks are in fact redirects to more unsourced content. I could definitely see an article on "Organized crime in fiction" that discusses the cultural portrayals of such with academic sourcing, but for the keepers, do tell, what is really worth saving here? Also rather dubious and reductive to sort street gangs by race without sourcing which discusses the significance of that. Race and its importance for gangs is usually a contextual matter i.e. who gives a shit if the Baker Street Irregulars are "European", they're based in 1800s London. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and has no standing whatsoever as a policy or guideline. It basically can be replaced every time with "I don't like it". Many editors like fancruft, others don't, but neither have the weight of formal Wikipedia language. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is useful shorthand to describe what this article is. If I said the article was "garbage" I don't think I'd get a lecture about it. Try WP:OR. How about WP:LISTN for the lack of notability for a bunch of these gangs? That and the fact that this is so broad were the main thrusts of my comment. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnet.com/news/the-book-of-boba-fett-will-apparently-address-his-return-of-the-jedi-survival/ and other sources appear when I search for "Jabba the Hutt" and "criminal empire". That is what it is even if no Wikipedia articles use that specific terminology.   D r e a m Focus  23:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added one secondary source that supports the distinction of organized crime/street gangs by ethnicity as a start. Daranios (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to Gangs in fiction and rewrite accordingly. There is an academic basis for this topic (sources have been provided), but this list is nothing but a crapshoot of what various drive-by editors saw on TV the other night, and in its current form I'd bet money it will stay that way. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to express my congratulations to for the excellent work done. In my view, the case here is simple: it serves WP:GNG because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Luidje (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, where? A small portion of the article is referenced to sources that do confirm that such and such a work had a criminal organization. The Star Wars one doesn't even seem to mention the word gang . This is just as bad as it was when it was AfDed, quality wise (it has bene pruned, but the only acceptable pruning here is total, I am afraid). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1- If you think that a part of the article is not covered by enough sources, just remove it. According to WP:RUBBISH: "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."
 * 2- And, if you didn't find the exact word in the sources, remember that human communication is formulated through concepts and semantics is much more important than searching for one or another term. Thus, according to WP:RUBBISH: "Some articles have well-written text and references. But the one thing poor about them is the title. There is a simple solution to this: rename it! If you are not able to move the article yourself for one reason or another, request someone else do it rather than nominate the whole article for deletion."
 * 3- I repeat, the case here is simple: it serves WP:GNG because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Luidje (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, but only because no evidence of notability (WP:NLIST) has been provided. If someone shows this grouping meets WP:GNG, please ping me and I'll flip my !vote (alternatively the closer can regard my vote as "Keep" if evidence of GNG has been provided).VR talk 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC) I see now that  has provided multiple sources that show that WP:NLIST is met.VR talk 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You link to WP:NLIST but did you read the second paragraph? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.   D r e a m Focus  19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That discussion notwithstanding, did you have a look at the secondary sources already provided which in my view show that WP:LISTN is already fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Re "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Which one of those do you think is being satisfied with this list? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Navigational since it helps people find articles if they are searching for this. If its a valid category, Category:Fictional gangs, then its valid information to have on a list.  Lists offer more information than a category does, so are more useful.
 * I have removed plenty of bad entries. Proper editing to fix problems, instead of outright deletion, is always the best choice.   D r e a m Focus  05:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying it's always the best choice to not delete a list article is a bit of a stretch. Obviously there are cases where deletion is the prefered outcome. No know does any guideline say "keep every list article no matter what." That aside though, it's laughable at best to say this helps as a navigational aid. I clicked on several links a while ago and they went to articles that had nothing to do with the gangs that the link was suppose to be for. How exactly is being sent to a bunch of articles that have nothing to do with the topic of the list navigationally helpful to any one?


 * Obviously Category:Fictional gangs exists, but WP:CLNT says "each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." The sentence makes it clear that we aren't suppose to recreate categories as lists just for their own sake, without considering the specific guidelines and standards for lists. So just being like "keep because category" isn't really valid on it's own or really at all IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are any bad links left then they can be removed, as I have already done with all the bad entries I saw . Many of these fictional gangs have their own articles, and others are mentioned significantly in the main article for the series, so are valid to be on the list.   D r e a m Focus  08:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "It's a valid category so it's a valid list" is a bad argument. Who wants to try turning Category:20th-century men into a list? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , you don’t have to WP:BLUDGEON the argument. Everyone knows your case for keeping, talking it to death won’t help it. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Kindly focus on the discussion not individuals. You made your ridiculous Bludgeon claim back when I had only posted my keep reason and responded to others in two places.  Others have posted more than me, but you only target me for some reason.   D r e a m Focus  08:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was partially on me for asking Dream Focus the question. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Who is actually going to read this? I saw the gang from GoldenEye. Who cares about that. I mean really, who cares. It is so byzantine as to be almost obscure, in way that is absolutly useless to the general readership. I can't think of a single scenario where this information will be useful. It is essentially taking a plot point to give setting and then including it in the article. Certainly some of them have a genuine existance and have been spun into news plots and have articles here describing the,. But it is so information poor and shallow, who is going to use it? It is poorest type of cruft that is possible to imagine, useless to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population. Delete per WP:NLIST.    scope_creep Talk  12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from that fact that this type of argument is discouraged in deletion discussions, the numbers don't seem to support your opinion: The page gets an average of 117 hits per day according to this page. So it's interesting to some. From what I've read, that's ca. 0.00004 % of Wikipedia's hits, meaning that 99.99996 % look for something else, not your much higher number. If we have 300 Mio. hits per day and about 6 Mio pages, that would mean an average ofabout 50 hits per day per page. So this page is of interest to more persons than the average Wikipedia page. Daranios (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be so, and I'm suprised, but you have not presented any evidence to say why 117 are coming down every day and viewing the page, merely the fact that is happening, and that still confirms my statement, that for vast majority of people, it is useless. I would suggest it is similar to viewing some bizarre sight, off the main path. The article could sit on any fancruft site on the internet, quite happily, without impacting part of Wikipedia. It doesn't change my statement. It still fails WP:NLIST.    scope_creep Talk  16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way is the existence of our list here impacting Wikipedia negatively? I cannot say why those people are coming here, but strongly suspect because they want to know what Wikipedia has to offer in terms of fictional gangs, i.e. navigation. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Lastly, you say our list here fails WP:NLIST. That guideline requires that the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". As listed above, there are such sources, that's why I think WP:NLIST is fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Which reliable source out there presents a list of gangs? In the form of a, well, a list? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the source must be in the exact language "List of fictional gangs" or it should be tossed out. Seriously, Wikipedia is not a battleground or talk show or a courtroom where adversaries spin evidence to favor a narrative, so when totally clarifying common sense reliable sources come to light, with 'delete' arguments proven incorrect (i.e. 117 people view the page daily offsets "nobody reads this") that maybe should be enough sometimes for everyone to say "cool, another page saved" and move on. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also find this reading weird. And am wondering if this is the best place or if this should rather be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability. But I can't help myself so: WP:LISTN says ". One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The "list topic" here is "fictional gangs", not "a list of fictional gangs", otherwise it would need to be called "Lists of fictional gangs". This is made extra clear in the guideline which says "whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs"". So we could just as well call our list here Fictional gangs in accordance with the guideline. Would not change the topic. Your reading would mean that prose sources about fictional gangs would have to be discounted, while listicles, frequently derided in deletion discussions (though not by me), would be the perfect secondary sources to establish notability of lists. That can hardly have been the intention. Also, a major purpose of lists on Wikipedia is navigation. Such a purpose is usually absent for lists existing in secondary sources. Why then should we require discussions in listform from secondary sources before we are allowed to write a list here? And nowhere in the guideline is there any mention of a listform. Daranios (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article has noting on the notable topic of gangs in fiction. Fancrufty listicles of trivia in place of proper analysis are a childhood diseases of Wikipedia that we need to outgrow the sooner the better. Part of the cure is removing the infected disease like such unsourced ORish lists of trivia, to be replaced with proper prose grounded in reliable sources. Look at any regular encyclopedia - they sport no such lists. Which is why they are seen as serious works. As for the numbers of people visiting the page, it's irrelevant - we don't know how many, if any, find it useful. (Shame the community didn't approve proposals to allow readers to rate our pages, sigh). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you hate certain topics with so much passion (other editors do like them you know) maybe you shouldn't be editing within a mile of any of them. Please consider that, thanks. Anyway, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, the opinion of some but not all editors, and has nothing to do with reasoning for Wikipedia to delete even one article. It's a false criteria, and knowing this should be in the closer instruction manual tattoo. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The guideline as it is now does not seem to share your take on this, presumably reflecting majority consensus. Most other encyclopedias are not online and interlinked the way Wikipedia is (or have as many articles), so other encyclopedias have no or less need for lists that help in navigation. Daranios (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which guideline? I believe GNG and LISTN do not support this list. Unless you are arguing for it as a purely navigational aid? If i tis rewritten and links solely to entries from Category:Fictional gangs then we could consider such an argument. Right now it is still 95% "non-notable gangs mentioned in passing in various works, plus some fictional non-gangs criminal or terrorist organizations added for no good reason". WP:TNT applies, although if User:Dream Focus were to finishish the rewrite, we could consider saving this. Otherwise they or you can copy the list to their sandbox and finish the work there (we could even draftify this). Again, if no cleanup is performed, TNT applies (no, this is not a case of AFDNOTCLEANUP, since there's next to nothing useful in the current fancrufty and unreferenced list of trivia, IMHO at least). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained, I believe both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, due to existing secondary sources on the topic of the list, allow for a List of fictional gangs. So there is not reason on grounds of notability to delete our list here. What remains is the question: Is the current version a reasonable start towards a decent version of such a list, which can be improved through further editing, or is it rather a case of WP:TNT, because it does not contain elements which we would find in a good version of such a list? I've done one part of the legwork and have counted 13 fictional gangs here wich have their own article (or one less if you discount SPECTRE). Not an enormous number, but my personal take would be that a list makes sense with 10+ entries for navigation purposes, and usefullness can be discussed between 5 and 10. We are beyond that arbitrary point. It seems the smaller part of those 13 is in Category:Fictional gangs, meaning the current version already allows for help in navigation the category currently does not provide. Ideally, both should be used to complete the other in future editing, expanding its use in navigation (the category has 15 full articles). Many more entries are discussed within other articles in Wikipedia (for seven of them, the name of the gang and the work it appears in have the same name). I think someone interested in the topic of fictional gangs will want to see those links (which the category cannot generally provide). Entries which do not appear elsewhere on Wikipedia and are not sourced should be removed. So in conclusion, yes, I think this list should be kept for navigation purposes. It does have content which would be included in a "good" list of fictional gangs. It is imperfect, but its flaws can be remove through editing. So it is not a case of WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup. Its to determine if an article is valid based on what its about, not its current state.  You use the talk page of the article to discuss what should be in it.   D r e a m Focus  16:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To answer the question, "who is going to read this?" I don't know, and you don't either.  What I do know is that our readers find it and use it.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons articulated by Luidje.
 * As to the persistent discussion here, WP:COAL might stifle some of this. Repetition extends the discussion needlessly, and makes it tend toward acrimony.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete subjective fancruft, WP:NLIST. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 15:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:NOT. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 08:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.