Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional gangs (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:27, 16 December 2021

List of fictional gangs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is an indiscriminate, mostly unreferenced list that fails WP:GNG. The structure is an ad-hoc, messy ORish division into crime syndicates, crime families and clans, street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, and even paramilitary organizations thrown in for good measure (in other words, the structure of the article is not grounded in any academic typology of gangs and is just amateurish and chaotic fancruft). There are no inclusion criteria, and the list includes numerous gangs that are just mentioned in passing in some works. For example, I am a fan of Shadowrun RPG and I even wrote the wikia entry on Shadowrun gangs - but to my surprise, most major SR gans are not on our list but we have the random entry for https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Kingston_Machine_Posse , a topic mentioned in passing in a minor game supplement. The argument that this is some sort of navigational aid cannot be taken seriously as the vast majority of gangs mentioned here are not notable, nor do they even redirect to a notable work. The amount of possible hoaxes contained here is hard to assess. While arguably the topic of gangs in fiction may be notable, this list is IMHO not salvageable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, overly broad definition of "gang" filled with non-notable groups. Many entries from TV are from a single episode and have no basis to group together. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed entries that don't have their own Wikipedia article. The number of those left with their own article is certainly enough to justify a navigational list. Dream Focus 18:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even with the cleanup that Dream Focus already did, the vast majority of these entries actually do not have their own articles - most of the blue links simply lead to broader articles on shows/characters/episodes/etc rather than an article on the "gangs" themselves. I can certainly see the potential for an actual prose article on fictional gangs, but this actual list fails WP:LISTN, and, again, as the number of blue links still remaining is extremely misleading in showing how few of these are actually notable enough for independent articles, it is not useful as a navigational list. Rorshacma (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Many of these entries are not even gangs, which is what happens when you create articles without any reliable third party sources. I wouldn't object to someone creating a coherent, discriminate article about one of these topics: for example, paramilitary organizations in fiction. But it would need to be written from scratch, as there is no reliable third party coverage to WP:PRESERVE from this list. In fact, there is no prose to preserve from this list at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Dream Focus is putting in some sweat work (my dad would call it "elbow grease") to get the list into good shape. A fine topic for such a list, as fictional gangs make up quite a large genre and cultural nitch portrayed as recently as the new West Side Story remake. Worth saving. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- “Sweat of the brow” is not a keep rationale. It is, however, a reason to found an underwater city according to some people. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: But it can be a keep rationale if the work involved leads to a case of WP:HEY. While I by no means want to say that the list as it is now is perfect, the changes did address and solve a major concern of the deletion nomination. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. I see one list like it, by gamesradar.com. Not even Ranker has bothered to compile one. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST and the fact that this is clearly unmaintainable OR fan craft. Plus, "fictional gang" is way to general of a topic to be useful or manageable. Maybe something like List of gangs in comic books might work, but even then probably not. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate fancruft. There is no strong definition of just “gang” besides “semi-organized group of criminals”. Does that make Lagoon Company a gang, or just a delivery company whose members are criminals? Is Gorillaz a gang because Murdoc Niccals is a criminal who basically used his bandmates as henchmen at certain points? What about all the times SpongeBob and friends got together to perform crimes? Maybe a list of notable fictitious organized crime gangs would be useful as part of an article on organized crime in fiction, but not this. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: But the current lack of references is not decisive for a deletion decision. It is the question if WP:LISTN can be met, because such secondary sources exist. Please see my listing of such sources below. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of those lists that is just better off as a category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination says "that this is some sort of navigational aid cannot be taken seriously as the vast majority of gangs mentioned here are not notable, nor do they even redirect to a notable work". This is no longer the case after the major clean-up, so I think it qualifies as a navigational aid for those interested in the topic. As they are treated elsewhere on Wikipedia, that they are not referenced here is not a major concern, and the primary sources are given anyway. The fact that the formating may not be great is no valid grounds for deletion, because it is something that can be improved. As for the notability, at the very least we have this full PhD thesis dealing with the topic of fictional gangs. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Make an actual article on the topic then, don’t waste time with this wp:listcruft and vague claims about its “navigational” purpose (which as I’ve said before is basically a synonym for WP:ITSUSEFUL at this point). Lists are nowhere near as useful or informative as an in-depth article; they’re just easy to make and inflate to an impressive size. They should be the exception, not the norm. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Nope, navigation is neither a vague claim nor "basically a synonym for WP:ITSUSEFUL", because the relevant Wikipedia guideline tells us navigation is one of the three main purposes lists serve here. As for a prose article, I think it would be good to have one. But how does deletion of this list bring us one iota closer towards that? So it seems to me your argument in this regard is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style does not take precedence over the relevant notability guideline. Also, Wikipedia has categories for this purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: True, and I did not say otherwise. But if push comes to shove, the Manual of Style as a guideline does take precedence over WP:Listcruft as an essay (though I don't think that that essay would require this list's deletion either). And I wanted to show that the purpose of navigation is not my personal opinion but grounded in the guideline. About the serious question of notability: I have already pointed out the PhD thesis, Clarityfiend has pointed out the online article. Searching a bit more, the book Gangs and Gang Crime has an 8-page chapter about "Gangs in Fiction and Film". With these I consider WP:GNG for the topic of "fictional gangs" fullfilled, and with this also WP:LISTN for our list here. Just to cement this further, there are two books on Google where the subject appears, though I cannot see the extension of the treatment: [1], [2], as well as a number more which talk about specific instances of fictional gangs. As for "Wikipedia has categories for this purpose", another of Wikipedia's guidelines says: "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative". Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, there is also the book Youth Gangs in Literature as put forward by Andrew D. in the last deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, I appreciate the effort. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and every time an AfD includes such good faith language it should be corrected, and hopefully all closers have the guideline tattooed on their bicep: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Randy Kryn (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except articles still need to meet GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).

Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

So two places in the Notability guideline page it says you don't need to meet the GNG if you are a navigational list, which is clearly what this is. Dream Focus 11:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically TNT for this unsourced FANCRUFT magnet. In what world does "Jabba the Hutt’s criminal empire" (no actual article for said "empire") belong with the Baker Street Irregulars in a directory? The practice of wikilinking real organized crime outfits here also muddies the waters further. Most of the bluelinks are in fact redirects to more unsourced content. I could definitely see an article on "Organized crime in fiction" that discusses the cultural portrayals of such with academic sourcing, but for the keepers, do tell, what is really worth saving here? Also rather dubious and reductive to sort street gangs by race without sourcing which discusses the significance of that. Race and its importance for gangs is usually a contextual matter i.e. who gives a shit if the Baker Street Irregulars are "European", they're based in 1800s London. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and has no standing whatsoever as a policy or guideline. It basically can be replaced every time with "I don't like it". Many editors like fancruft, others don't, but neither have the weight of formal Wikipedia language. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful shorthand to describe what this article is. If I said the article was "garbage" I don't think I'd get a lecture about it. Try WP:OR. How about WP:LISTN for the lack of notability for a bunch of these gangs? That and the fact that this is so broad were the main thrusts of my comment. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-book-of-boba-fett-will-apparently-address-his-return-of-the-jedi-survival/ and other sources appear when I search for "Jabba the Hutt" and "criminal empire". That is what it is even if no Wikipedia articles use that specific terminology. Dream Focus 23:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to express my congratulations to @Dream Focus: for the excellent work done. In my view, the case here is simple: it serves WP:GNG because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Luidje (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, where? A small portion of the article is referenced to sources that do confirm that such and such a work had a criminal organization. The Star Wars one doesn't even seem to mention the word gang ([3]). This is just as bad as it was when it was AfDed, quality wise (it has bene pruned, but the only acceptable pruning here is total, I am afraid). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only because no evidence of notability (WP:NLIST) has been provided. If someone shows this grouping meets WP:GNG, please ping me and I'll flip my !vote (alternatively the closer can regard my vote as "Keep" if evidence of GNG has been provided).VR _talk 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You link to WP:NLIST but did you read the second paragraph? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Dream Focus 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 *::Agreed. -[[User:Indy beetle|Indy beetle]] ([[User talk:Indy beetle|talk]]) 11:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''', but only because no evidence of notability ([[WP:NLIST]]) has been provided. If someone shows this grouping meets [[WP:GNG]], please ping me and I'll flip my !vote (alternatively the closer can regard my vote as "Keep" if evidence of GNG has been provided).'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
+*:You link to [[WP:NLIST]] but did you read the second paragraph?  ''Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.'' [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)