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. Enigma^msg 19:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dooney Boys[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Non-notable local street gang with minimal depth of coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why every article i have created they are all marked for deletion? if the gang is not "notable there wouldn't be multiple articles on them. Please give me an explanation why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codo2411 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because, at least in this case, whatever articles you do have are sources we normally do not accept (blogs) or merely name-check the gang without going into any serious discussion or exploration of it. Blogs are generally not viable as sources, and passing mentions like name-drops or quotables never are (because in-depth sources will cover that information and much more). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is one of several recently created articles about local street gangs including Ride or Die Gang, Young Melph Mafia, 110ers Gang, Taliban Gang, and 39ers Gang. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Yes i know but i don't understand why delete? i made sure every single source was not copyrighted material. I apologize for removing the notice from 39ers Gang i thought it was okay if i fixed the article. if it's anything i can do let me know so i can fix them before they are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codo2411 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the sourcing issues. Three of the sources cited are quite evidently blogs based on their URLs, and the other two are name-drops that cannot help for notability what-so-ever. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all blog links from the article Dooney Boys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codo2411 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG without non-trivial coverage from other than local reliable sources. They get a paragraph in Time and single sentences in other publications. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few passing book mentions (around Katrina - they were covered by TIME in a piece that was then briefly quoted). Not sufficient for NCRIME or CORPDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2018 (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.