Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Enemy No. 1


 * 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. There is also consensus to move, but not to move to where, so I leave that as an editorial descission Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Public Enemy No. 1

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources for this article have been given, or can be found after thorough searching. It has been marked as having no references since 2007, and in this 5 year period no references have been found. Due to the fact no references can be found, it also doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for articles and should be deleted. HorseloverFat (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article in the external links doesn't even mention this gang. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

*Delete did not find any reliable source references to support that the subject meets WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, due to the references that have now been provided it can be independently verified that the group exists, whether the organization itself passes WP:ORG is a different story. That being said, the content that can be verified using the reliable sources provided should be kept somewhere, the question is where? Should it be redirected towards an article about the Scott Miller murder, List of criminal enterprises, gangs and syndicates, or somewhere else? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (Changing to "Keep", see below.) as completely unsourced original research. Google search and Google News search find no Reliable Sources about this gang. We should consider speedy-deletion, since the article contains unverified criminal allegations against several individuals by name. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I simply deleted that paragraph because of BLP concerns. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Sources include, , , as well as coverage from the Scott Miller murder. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much of this should be considered basically local. If the community consensus is not to keep the article, the title should be redirected to public enemy for the sake of people who come in looking for Dillinger, Floyd, etc. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are going to redirect it, I would suggest to Public Enemy No. 1 (disambiguation). Or to Public enemy (disambiguation). The term has a lot of uses. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing my !vote to Keep based on the sources found by Roscelese. These are in-depth articles from three different regional papers - and they do tend to confirm much of what is in the article. If they are added to the article and used to source its information I would favor a Keep. However, I would favor changing the name to Public Enemy No. 1 (gang) because the term has so many other uses; it is not unique to this gang. The title Public Enemy No. 1 should probably redirect to the disambiguation page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * rename and keep keep per the sources provided by Roscelese, rename per MelanieN -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added the sources found by Roscelese to the article, and have deleted the "unreferenced" tag. I think the article clearly passes muster now, but I still favor the rename I proposed above. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment it certainly isn't the primary topic... so if this is kept, it needs to be renamed, and the disambiguation page moved into the primary location. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:20, 3 March 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.