Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in The Warriors


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of gangs in The Warriors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No third party sources could be found to describe the cultural impact of these gangs. Precedent for deleting this type of article found at these two fictional gang lists. (Although those were confined to video games, the original film version never attracted much attention to the numerous minor gangs in the fictional universe.) There are some articles about "the warriors" but they only cover reception of the film or recap plot details about the protagonists. Fails WP:V and WP:N, and would otherwise be a WP:CONTENTFORK about the plot. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability for the majority of these gangs. Article has no sources and appears to have a large amount of original research.  (I've both seen the film and played the game and the majority of this information does not appear to be obvious on the face of those two pieces of media.)  Would in any case be an excessively detailed amount of in-universe detail that makes no attempt to establish its real-world significance or cultural impact. (This last point makes it an unsuitable candidate for a merge.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article is well written and the external links at the bottom of the page reference the material written. -- WölffReik (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- this fancruft has no secondary sources and appears to be mostly original research. As DustFromWords says, most of what's in the article is not obvious at all from the game or the film and takes considerable effort and interpretation to extract. Reyk  YO!  06:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a list of characters already. Need a list of gangs as well.  There is a book, a film, and two video games in this series.  Listing all the gangs allows a greater understanding of them all.  Most encyclopedic.   D r e a m Focus  03:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Very useful article. Artw (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The essay WP:USEFUL suggests that that is not considered an especially strong argument. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: not notable due to no secondary sources. No idea why anyone flagged it for rescue. Can't be improved because no significant sources exist. Seems people came here to vote and not to actually improve the article. AFD is not a vote. 74.198.28.196 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No secondary sources to establish notability. In fact, this article is completely unreferenced.  The definition of WP:FANCRUFT.    Snotty Wong   talk 22:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This does appear to be pure cruft. The !votes for keep do not provide valid reasons to keep it. ("Very useful article" and suggesting another list due to a previous list just don't cut it.) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (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.