Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut Wave 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. Mike V •  Talk  14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Slut Wave Gang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor local gang that got arrested a couple of times. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Coverage is mainly that they exist. Nothing indicating any durable notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I will shortly come up with proof that this is NOT a Local small unrelevant street Gang. -- Gary   Dee  18:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Gary, maybe you should establish notability before you start spamming links to them everywhere. Instead of doing a solid article, you rushed to do 2 articles that say almost nothing and don't show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, i lost the origin link of it. But nevertheless, the Slut Wave Gang as well the 88 Boys Gang are involved & tied to Federal Prosecutions, only this is a fact that they are relevant to keeping (the Article(s)). Especially considering the involvement in rival ties to the Playboys gang:

As you can read here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/cops_bust_slut_wave/ "They arrested 11 alleged members and associates of the Slut Wave gang on drug and weapons charges, according to Sgt. Karl Jacobsen. Federal and state agents joined New Haven cops and the SWAT team in executing search warrants at four homes on Columbus Avenue, Rosette and Button streets, and Harding Place in Newhallville around 5 a.m." AND here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/harp_probes_the_newhallville_conundrum/ ”They passed a rundown house on Division Street. “That’s a problem house” known for drugs and guns, Brown said. Members of the Slut Wave gang hang there. Right around the corner, he said, members of the Playboys gang are staying. He surprised Harp by informing her that Slut Wave originally operated out of the Hill. “I don’t understand,” he said, “why Slut Wave would move that close to the Playboys.” See this case as well (Crips gang): Commuting to this case: http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2012/eighteen-charged-with-narcotics-offenses-after-fbi-task-force-investigation-into-new-haven-gang-activity AND Finally according to this article: http://www.segag.org/ A gang is a group of three or more persons who have a common identifying sign, symbole, or name who individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in, criminal activity which creates and atmosphere of fear and intimidation. There is no limit to the size of these particular single sets of gangs. Some gang sets may consist of as few as three members, while others may have hundreds of individuals claiming to be members. But the most important thing i mentioned above, is that even it might appear as a local gang, is simply not an irrelevant fact they have been on focus of federal agents of the FBI. Therefor: Keep (article). -- Gary   Dee  19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And if Federal as State Agents were needed to support local police, it is not a "just small unrelevant gang" raid. Surely not. -- Gary   Dee  19:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gary, that's not how we establish notability. Perhaps you should read WP:N. The presence of federal officers or choosing to use federal charges over state have no bearing whatsoever on notability. Please use a policy based argument, not WP:IHEARDOFIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will recommend to Keep, based on the sources which I added to the article. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Antrocent, You underst(ood)and the position.  Gary   Dee  21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources show they exist. They don't provide any significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Simply not notable by our standards. Very little coverage in independent reliable sources: Basically, several alleged members of the gang were arrested in January. They used to be in one neighborhood, now they are in another. Insufficient coverage. Fails WP:GNG. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * DeleteUnremarkable bunch of hoodlums.TheLongTone (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep & Delete. -- Gary   Dee  15:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gary, your !vote is both ways.....you cancel yourself out. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (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.