Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMP (Oregon street 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. Sources not in depth enough to meet WP:N Wily D 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

MMP (Oregon street gang)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A speedy deletion template was removed twice without comment. The topic of this article, a gang of high school students, doesn't seem to me to be of sufficient notability; the geographic area is extremely limited and the two references merely mention the existence of this group without according it any notability or importance (other than the idea that it was "first"). No further references were available upon a search. There is no way of verifying the contentions within the article about the meaning of the acronym and they may be original research. Ubelowme U Me  17:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Two reliable sources: 1. Statesman Journal, the largest newspaper in the capital of the state. 2. City of Salem. Both sources mention that this gang was the first recorded gang in the capital city. These sources do not give an "idea" that it was the first. These sources flat-out say it was the "first." Reliable sources providing notability. Copy Editor (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not disagree that the sources say the organization in question was "first".  I question whether that, ipso facto, is evidence of notability.  For the rest, I think WP:CLUB says it best; the subject is certainly not national or international in scale and there is no "information about the organization and its activities" that can be verified by multiple third-party independent reliable sources.  We are told that the organization existed by two entirely local sources; we know nothing about its "longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals or other factors specific to the organization".  Ubelowme U  Me  19:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a difference between being "famous" and "notable." Just because it wasn't national or international in scale (that is, "famous") doesn't mean that it isn't notable. It seems self-evident that if it is important enough to be mentioned in the largest newspaper in the capital city of the state of Oregon, and on the website about gang prevention by the City of Salem, Oregon, then it is notable. It doesn't matter that the sources are not "famous" either (e.g., "entirely local sources"); what matters is that they are themselves verifiable, trustworthy, notable sources. Copy Editor (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The Keep proponent is, perhaps, uninformed about the provisions of WP:GNG. The GNG does indeed require multiple, reliable sources ... which discuss the subject in "significant detail," and which specifically single out one-sentence mentions as "trivial mentions" which do not qualify.  Both the sources presented refer to this gang in a single sentence, and then discuss it no further.   Ravenswing   08:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There are indeed several references, just perhaps not available immediately via a random Google search. (...." it need not be the main topic of the source material.") Statesman Journal and The Oregonian have references in their databases regarding the period. And I believe it is inappropriate to speculate as to what a fellow editor may or may not be aware of. Copy Editor (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Well ... if you were aware of that clause of the GNG, then you blithely ignored it. If you weren't aware of it, then you are advocating the notability of a subject without an understanding of the appropriate guidelines governing notability.  That being said, an archival search on both the Statesman Journal and The Oregonian websites for this gang turn up nothing.  If you have found references that discuss the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires, would you mind citing them, please, presuming their existence is not, well ... speculation?   Ravenswing   18:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor correction. An archival search does not turn up nothing, because we do have a link to an article by the Statesman Journal. The additional references were made in issues that are not available online at this time, though are available at the local library on microfilm and microfiche. I will include those references as soon as possible. Copy Editor (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well ... we have a link to an article where the mention of MMP is so trivial, the newspaper didn't see any need to include it in search terms. As far as soon as possible goes, the AfD runs until Wednesday, so I'll be happy to change my vote if good references which meet the GNG appear before then.    Ravenswing   19:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw. That's sweet of you I'll see what I can do. :) Copy Editor (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable street gang. The Statesman-Journal is indeed a large mainstream newspaper, but the size and public presence of this informal organization is probably comparable to the Willamette University College Republicans, or some such, and the media coverage essentially non-existent. Carrite (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I take it that you don't know much about the demographics of Oregon, then. This was the first street gang in the history of the state capital. It was made up of low-income people, largely of Latino descent, largely from the poorer towns in the region (Gervais, Woodburn, North Salem), and they were under surveillance by the police department and subject to police investigations. Willamette University, by contrast, is said to be the oldest university west of the Mississippi, is decidedly white, and it is one of the most expensive and exclusive universities in the state of Oregon. There is no comparison whatsoever between these two entities. Your analogy is utterly meaningless. Copy Editor (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Your position is utterly irrelevant. The demographics of Oregon form no part of Wikipedia notability criteria.  What does is, for one, the GNG, which holds that a subject, to be notable, must have multiple reliable, independent, published sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail."   Ravenswing   17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response I never held the position that demographics of Oregon formed a part of Wikipedia notability criteria. I held the position that it is meaningless to form an analogy that in any way likens the first street gang in Salem, Oregon, history to a Republican group at Willamette University. Simply put, it was a bad analogy on the part of the other Wikipedia editor. -- Copy Editor (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Statesman Journal lists another half dozen youth gangs and in fact that articles does not centre around MMP. I would say this gang that has failed to generate any other information aside from mention in this article fails WP:EFFECT and a clearcut case of WP:NOTNEWS. Mkdw talk 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There IS other information. Just not online at the moment. Copy Editor (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: What makes you say so? Have you seen this other information yourself?  If so, why haven't you cited it for the article?  If not, then don't claim that information exists when in truth you have no idea.  (And that being said, you said a week ago that you were about to include useful references.  You're about to run out of time.)   Ravenswing   17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response What makes me say so? lol. Oh, well ... I just so remember holding in my hands in the late 1980s an actual hard copy newspaper article mentioning this gang. (And, to clarify, it didn't "mention" this gang; the article was ABOUT this gang, as it warranted a full article and picture of the members in the late 1980s, precisely BECAUSE it was the first and was actually scaring people in Salem, Oregon.) Everyone in Salem, Oregon, knew about them. But being that that was in the 1980s, that article isn't available on their website. They were actually covered quite a bit locally. But, again, this was an era that hasn't made it onto the online database of these newspapers yet. As for why I haven't included them in this article yet, well ... I haven't had the time to get down to the library and find those older articles on microfilm. I actually have a life, believe it or not. Thanks. -- Copy Editor (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Copy Editor, I understand your argument, but we simply can't base having this article on your witness account with out WP:VERIFIABLE Mkdw talk 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Of course, the article will be deleted without prejudice, so if some day you have genuine references supporting the subject's notability, you can always recreate it at that time.   Ravenswing   07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that they need to be online and varifiable. I was simply refuting the claim that it received no coverage and that it was akin to the Republican club at Willamette University. If it gets deleted, fine. Just recreate it at some other point (when I have more time to find those older articles). Thanks. Copy Editor (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Sounds like a really cool, bad-ass group of guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.255.66 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would you care to proffer an argument founded in any way on Wikipedia policies and guidelines?   Ravenswing   17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some sort of requirement that the subject of an article have significant, widespread coverage in reliable sources? I can't remember where it is.  But if this gang was just in Salem, how significant is it in a worldwide encyclopedia?  Even now, Salem only has a population of 150,000.  In the eighties it was half that.  How much significance can a gang there and only there that isn't there any more and never grew past there be? Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By your analogy, they should delete articles about towns like Starbuck, Washington because, you know, small and insignificant town. But there is some Wikipedia policy that says that there is a difference between being "notable" and "famous." Copy Editor (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * C'mon, you've been here long enough to know that isn't a proper analogy. Places on the landscape only have to have proof of their existence, not their notability. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There actually is a policy that applies in this situation, WP:CLUB, from which I quote: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead."  [Emphasis mine.] Ubelowme U  Me  15:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is exactly the policy I was trying to remember.Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's certainly that too. A gang of the caliber of the Blackstone Rangers is notable.  A small, ephemeral group in a small city is not.   Ravenswing   00:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify: Salem, Oregon may be a "small city," but it is actually the second biggest city in the state of Oregon, AND the capital of the state. Copy Editor (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "........and this non-notable street gang hasn't generated a flea's bite on an ant's buttock of substantial coverage in independently published sources." No books. No coverage in scholarly papers. Not a peep outside a brief mention in the Statesman'. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW: Eugene and Salem are essentially tied for "second largest city in Oregon" honors at 156,000 each. And the Statesman has no place of dominance in the Willamette Valley, any more than the Eugene Register-Guard. The Oregonian is the state's newspaper of record and they've given no ink whatsoever to this street gang, so far as I'm aware. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's a 2006 report of Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, Organized Crime in Oregon, detailing the significant street gangs in the state. MMP? No hay nada... Carrite (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A listing of "Oregon Gangs" on NorthwestGangs.com??? You guessed it... Carrite (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, it ceased to exist in the early 1990s, so it stands to reason that it wouldn't be included in a report from 2006. And in Salem, Oregon, the Statesman Journal IS the main paper read. People in Salem don't read The Oregonian as much, because -- surprise surprise -- it's about what's going on in Portland. Copy Editor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CLUB Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per all the delete comments above. This so called gang is want-to-bes. But fail criteria of notability and such. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment So, the city of Salem is wrong when they list them as a gang? And, besides that, it doesn't exist anymore, so how could they be "wannabes"? lol. It would seem the first criterion to be a wannabe would be mere existence. lol Copy Editor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Couldn't this information be merged to Crime in Oregon or into a "crime" section for Salem, Oregon? 72.74.217.36 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE. Neither article is written in the exhaustive depth that would warrant the mention of an ephemeral gang in a small area which doesn't seem to have done much of anything.  Heck, there isn't any mention of current gang activity in those articles, which you'd think would be far better documented and far more pressing.   Ravenswing   21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Commenet "Small" is subjective. On a national scale, the entire state of Oregon is small. Geographically, it's large. But in terms of population, I think there are less people spread over the entire state of Oregon than crammed into New York City. The word "small" could be used to describe anything in Oregon; and this "small" area to which you refer encompasses, again, the second largest city in the state of Oregon (Salem) -- which is the state capital. And the police department of said city found this gang notable enough to mention them on their own website. Copy Editor (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Eugene is the second largest city in Oregon, not Salem. And unless the gang got a member elected to the house, I cannot see how the fact that Salem is the capital is in any way significant.  The mention of the gang on the city's website is just one line and not of any significance.  The mention of the gang in the newspaper article cited is also just of a passing nature.  If you cannot find a source that even approximates the number of members or this particular gang's impact on the community, you really haven't got an article.  Even if you could document those things, since it never affected anyplace other than Metro Salem, I highly doubt even then you would have enough for an article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears that, after a period during which Salem was the second most populous city in the state, the population of Eugene recently surpassed the population of Salem -- by all of 2,000 people. But setting that aside, please don't act like you aren't aware that things that take place in the capital city of a state are of significance for the entire state. And the idea that a street gang could have anything to do with getting a member elected to the house is just ridiculous, a really awful analogy. And I can't think of anything that could verify the existence of a gang better than being mentioned on the website maintained by the police in the city in which the gang was based. Copy Editor (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * May I ask something? What is the point of all this filibustering, attempting to refute the comments of virtually every editor?  If you're trying to argue that we should believe this gang to be important, this isn't the venue for it.  If you're trying to argue that the article meets the requirements of the GNG, WP:ORG or WP:CLUB, that was a lost cause a couple weeks back.  WP:KEEPCONCISE ...   Ravenswing   04:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I could turn that back around and ask you why you are asking me this question. Copy Editor (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Criminal gangs are not famous, they are infamous. Infamy begets notoriety, not notability.  Example: Nazi Germany.  So if you want to state these folks are notoriously infamous, sure, that's ok.  But don't call them notable and famous, because that's off target. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In case this was addressed to me: I was framing my responses in the context of Wikipedia terminology. To my knowledge, the key word on Wikipedia is "notability" with regard to discussions such as this. Copy Editor (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google and Google News Archives searches for (mmp salem gang) fail to turn up anything relevant beside this article and the two sources cited therein.  Subject treated very briefly in sources cited; no evidence of significant coverage.  No evidence of coverage outside of Salem area.  Delete per failure to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:GEOSCOPE.  Ammodramus (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - MMP isn't the 18th Street gang. The topic MMP lacks enought reliable sources coverage for a stand-alone article. The main news source, Statesman Journal December 21, 2008, isn't even completely about the MMPs. They are mentioned, but that plus the other references found don't add up to enought content. It seems doubtful there is any more RS information out there on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:13, 21 September 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.