Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight Tray Gangster Crips

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 merge to Crips. Black Kite 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Tray Gangster Crips

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

Deleted last year via prod. Non-notable sub-set of a notable organization. The larger organization, the Crips is notable, but this set has a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. While the article calls them the most well known set in LA, there is a total of 1 gnews hit and that is about crimes in the Denver area. [1]. No real shortage of ghits, but they are almost exclusively sites that won't pass WP:RS or mirrors of wikipedia. Of the first 100 returns, only 1 would pass RS and it simply mentioned them in a list of various sets. Fails WP:ORG. Can't really speedy since the article claims notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems you have no knowledge of the criteria being discussed so your call for deletion is moot in the eyes of logic. Furthermore, if you know anything about the Crips you would know that the two largest sets are the Rollin 60s and the 83 Gangsters -- try looking up the name 'Sanyika "Monster" Shakur' formerly 'Kody Scott' whom was close friends with "Tookie" Williams; the founder of the Crips. Really, all I see is an ignorant observer attempting to keep others ignorant of the same information. I think there are MUCH more important things that need to be attended to here at Wikipedia. I mean really, just google "Eight Tray" or "Eight Tray Gangster". There are 19 million and 92 million results, respectively. There is even a movie called 'Eight Tray Gangster: The Making of a Crip' which is reviewed in the New York Times. Conclusively, your call for deletion has no basis and the reasoning for such a thing is actually horribly inaccurate -- as obviously seen with a single quick Google search. Psychedelia (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (-8 GMT)

Actually, I do understand the criteria. Google hits don't demonstrate notability. Try reading WP:GOOGLE. As I said in the nom, out of the first 100, only 1 of the returns would pass WP:RS. I am aware of the movie and book. That makes Kody Scott notable (and he has an article), but that doesn't make the set itself notable. To put it in simpler terms, the American Red Cross is notable, but the (insert random county) Red Cross chapter is not notable. You need to read the applicable guidelines and policies. I know they are one of the largest sets, but that doesn't make them notable on their own. Nor will lecturing me about how little I know make it notable, especially when you are wrong. First, I know much more about the topic than you think and second, I know the applicable policies and that's why this article is nominated for delection. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Your version of reliable sources must be different from mine. Your totalitarian tactics, more obvious than your affiliation with the GOP, are clearly biased. From viewing your usertalk page and viewing your many other wiki accounts it seems you have a problem with information being added if YOU think it's not valuable. You're one person, remember this -- and your opinion should only be weighed as such. Is calling for deletion of an article that myself and several others, including members of the Crips whom I am affiliated with, find EXTREMELY NOTABLE really that important to you? I'm looking to contribute knowledge and you are trying to condemn it. Psychedelia (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2009 (-8 GMT)
  - If you are a Crip, maybe you should read WP:COI. But your response clearly shows you still haven't read WP:RS. I posted this question on the reliable sources noticeboard for a third opinion and they are agreeing that the sites like you are using do not meet the requirements. (no opinion on streetgangs.com in particular, but similar sites) While you are at it, you might want to read WP:NPA. Your !vote is really nothing more than a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Nothing you've said here is based on policy. BTW, I have no other wiki accounts. Everything I've done is under this name. If you suspect otherwise, feel free to initiate a sockpuppet investigation and let them prove you wrong. I hve no fear of being proven to have been nothing but honest. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Crips. There are a few more hits under the "correct" spelling, but nothing stellar that I could access. This DoJ press release commends officers for their work against one of the most notorious and violent street gangs within Los Angeles (1996). This Time article discusses an alleged member in depth, and mentions that they are estimated to have distributed hundreds of kilos of crack and cocaine powder worth well in excess of $10 million on the street. (1995). - 2/0 (cont.) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect. The Time article you refer to, about an individual, actually focuses mostly on that individuals criminal activities in other states, away from the gang. The AG memo really isn't that in-depth. No dispute that they exist and are violent. What is in dispute is their notability and the lack of significant coverage about the group itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.