Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani gangs in the UK


 * 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani gangs in the UK

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Almost entirely original research, with many unfounded statements such as "the Pakistani gang "Shieldz" are known for their part in the murder of schoolboy Kriss Donald". Googling "Shieldz" + "Kriss Donald" returns zero results. Croxley 03:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources are not what you would call reliable media coverage. The rest is OR.--Dacium 06:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I was torn between the two sides of delete or keep on this one - but you only have to look in the history of the page to note that msot of it is craeted by anonymous users. There are a lot of quotes with citation needed on them and for me that ruined the article, not only are the claims unverifiable, but it makes it harder to read.
 * On the other hand if the information is true its an interesting article on race relations in the UK going back to the 1960s.
 * But to be honest its a lot of work to be done in such a short space of time and some of the phrases used are a little inappropriate for an encyclopedia even if they were used in that context. --PrincessBrat 12:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR unless sourced. The article would indeed be a valuable addition to WP if it was sourced.  Some of the content (again, only if sourced) might appropriate in an article about Race relations in the United Kingdom.  -- Black Falcon 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has potential, but as it stands I don't find it adequately sourced/referenced, and there is that nasty smell of OR. If the article were substantially pruned and a couple of references could be found by the close of this debate I'd change my opinion. WMMartin 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, for pretty much the same reasons mentioned above. It could be an interesting and relevant article if it was based on reliable documented facts instead of the uncited claims by anonymous IP users. Spylab 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - it's a great pity because if refed it would be a useful article, but it isn't and must go. NBeale 12:31, 28 February 2007 (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.