Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinitario


 * 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. Nja 247 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Trinitario

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Queried speedy delete; was deleted as non-notable USA street gang. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am rebuilding this article. I already have at least 10 sources.         .  I also have the US Department of Justice as another source.   CashRules (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article should not be restored. It's not about number of references (and some of the sources are questionable relaibility). Nobody disputes that gang exists. What was disputed, and led to the article being deleted, was their lack of real notability. Their coverage is limited to almost only the NYC area. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * keep . According to the US Department of Justice Website they are in Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. .  Give me a few days to work on this article.  It will be up to standards.  CashRules (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what the DoJ says. But in most of those cases, it is a very small number that claim affiliation rather than actual organized activity. In a couple of years, maybe. But now, no. I still say non-notable at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are aware how DoJ comes up with most of this information. They simply send out voluntary questionnaires to law enforcement agencies every year and ask them to name the gangs in their jurisdiction and to rate their level of activity. If a police dept. in Alaska responds and says they have "Trinitarios" and a "low level of activity", the DoJ will report they are preent there, even if in reality that was only 1 or 2 members. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * alright, so its simply not just the new york city area. its nationwide. CashRules (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The coverage of them is primarily NY, NJ and MA. And a member or two in a couple of states isn't really what I'd consider "nationwide". That's just my opinion. For example, it the XYZ Boys were found in NJ and then a member moved to NM with his family, got documented by a local PD there, are we going to call them "nationwide"? I'd say there needs to be a significant presence in 15-20% of the states to be considered "nationwide". Yes, that is an arbitrary number, but I think it is fair too. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 02:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of resources, not a small, local gang, so is notable and verifiable. I did delete the section "Notable Members" consisting of a list of red-linked pseudonyms of members.  The article should not be used as a platform for building non-notable biographies on members. Drawn Some (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2009 (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.