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. Since the entire rationale for deletion is that the list was unsourced, and all the current entries are now sourced, there really is no need to hold this open any longer. If this had been done after the first AfD we really could have saved all this trouble SpinningSpark 00:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of British mobsters[edit]

List of British mobsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This list was cleared by another editor as being a BLP violation. I declined PROD since article had previously been kept at the first AfD. Given that this article has apparently never been sourced and that in some cases, some of these individuals are still alive, the article probably should fall, unless somebody is willing to do some rather quick legwork and provide proper sourcing. Delete. Safiel (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It had more than enough time to get "genuwine sources" and did not get them. Collect (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has exactly seven days to get them, the length of time of this AfD, which is all that I am personally willing to grant. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Blanking the entire article seems excessive - are you sure that NONE of the linked articles have sources? Artw (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanking the list entry for Frankie Fraser on BLP grounds, for instance, seems a little over the top since his article is well sourced, he is a notorious gangster and he's dead. Artw (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would be willing to unblank the deceased entries, during the continuance of this AfD, although the article still should fall in its entirety, if sources are not found in seven days. Safiel (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that would be a good idea. Artw (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you do that I will remove them again. This article needs to be fully BLP compliant as of right now. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We need to make the most of the afd to add entires that are fully BLP compliant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should go without saying that WP:BLP applies ONLY to living persons. Obviously, unsourced entries for living persons should not be readded to the list. But deceased persons are not protected by that policy. Adding them back to the list does not constitute a WP:BLP violation, though they should be sourced and though the article still should fall at AfD if they are not sourced. But the extraordinary step of blanking is not required for deceased persons, only for living persons. Safiel (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While that sounds okay in theory we would need some verifiability that they are dead unless you are talking of obviously historical characters where the whole generation has died out, but having said that I am not opposed to restoring only dead people unsourced though heaven knows sourced would be a thousand times better. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the linked articles are not sourced then the linked articles should themselves be up for deletion - at a casual glance that does not appear to be the case. Unless you are saying we need the references within the list? Artw (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need to cite within the list itself, and for all entries but especially for the entries concerning living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the articles exist and are cited is of course no evidence whatsoever that any of these ppl are mobsters, or british for that matter. Having an article is not evidence of being a British mob ster, why would you think it might be? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only was the list a gross violation of WP:BLP policy (containing entirely unsourced allegations of serious criminality), but 'mobster' is in any case an entirely subjective term, appropriate perhaps for tabloid headlines but of no encyclopaedic merit given its self-evident vagueness. Inclusion on the list seems to have been based on nothing but WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as list was not attempting to be rigorously verifiable that each entry was a mobster, resulting in currently zero entries. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - no value at present - no assertion of notability - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - I have restored the bulk of the content of the article. The content removal and subsequent AFD appear to be a good faith result of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. Artw (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring BLP violations is a serious business. Read our WP:BLP policy and do not restore contentious material about living ppl. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not seeing any BLP issues, please deal with any items in the list where you believe they exist seperately. I'd love to hear your rationale for removing the Kray twins. Artw (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not YOU can see BLP issues is beside the point. They have been pointed out to you by another editor. How is claiming a living person is a mobster without a reliable source not a BLP violation? You need to stop adding the names of living ppl and not claim the burden is on me; it isnt according to our policies and you are required to abide by them. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible objection to any attempt at speedy keep or any form of speedy closure Valid notability issues exist for this list as well as referencing issues. In any event, several valid deletion votes/arguments exist. Safiel (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to unbold this comment, or switch it to a more standard "Comment". Otherwise it could give the false impression that you were !voting more than once. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To prevent any further strife, I have courtesy blanked the article, pending the end of the AfD, given the strenuous objections to the content. Safiel (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not entirely sure how the repeated blanking and now this squares up with your "It has exactly seven days to get them, the length of time of this AfD, which is all that I am personally willing to grant" comment regarding references above. 22:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Hopefully, we will get a prompt decision at the BLP noticeboard and an administrator will likely restore some of the content, at least as it pertains to people that are definitely deceased. But given that the article is under BLP noticeboard complaint, a temporary blanking is appropriate. I would not have chosen to blank the whole thing, but I will accede pending the outcome at the BLP noticeboard, rather than risk an edit war. Safiel (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment excluding living people here's what the list looks like [1]. Artw (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An admin CAN only restore the names of dead ppl without reliable sources, admins have no exemption from BLP policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename, and reference. Honestly, the amount of time spent in this AfD and on the BLP Noticeboard discussing this could've been spent providing references for the article. All the entries are easily sourceable, I have a list of tabs open now for most of the living entries, but I can't add them because the page has been blanked. The article should be renamed to List of British Gangsters or List of British Gang Members/Leaders though. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support the addition of any reliably sourced material to the article, or even do it myself. I thoroughly oppose this ridiculous blanking (of the page, I support the removal of all unrefd material), squandering the only opportunity we have to fix the article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the referencing, rather than the removal, of unreferenced info. Edit warring ain't my bag though so I'll wait to see if someone else restores the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont oppose restoring unrefd the dead entries. BLP, though, demands the removal of all living entries which are unsourced, that is not a matter in which we editors get to have a say. I have to say waiting on a BLP noticeboard discussion doesnt seem appropriate for dead ppl and we know that no admin from there will restore the living people unref'd. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The first step, though, should be to try and reference it, not to blindly remove it. Sources for these entries are many, and easy to find, and this whole rigmarole is a waste of everyone's time. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read and digested BLP you would know this is not true when it coems to controversial BLP, and mobster is as controversial as they come. Enforcing BLP is never a waste of time, it isnt about editors, it is about the ppl we write about, and it comes before the convenience of editors or of the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per BLP BlueSalix (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP grounds do you believe the article the list should be deleted on? Artw (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• list is a lot better now, ta for the work - not seeing mobsters as a correct title from reading the sites though-i am still on delete this, creating a list of unconnected people seems like something this site isnt designed to do

Govindaharihari (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Finding sources is remarkably easy and examples such as Britain's most infamous gangsters attend launch party show that there are plenty of living examples who are not at all shy about their status. And there are plenty of historical cases going back through Peaky Blinders, Jonathan Wild/Jack Sheppard to Robin Hood. For encyclopedic treatments of this stuff see Gangsters Encyclopedia: The World's Most Notorious Mobs, Gangs and Villains and Encyclopedia of Gangs. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - all entries in the list should be referenced (via footnote) with a reliable source that identifies them as "mobsters" or "gangsters". There are now entries in the list so referenced. BLP doesn't apply to entries about people who have been dead for more than a few months, but the entry should still be referenced. By "referenced" I do not mean "over-referenced", one reference should be enough, especially where there is a link to an article that has lots of references; there doesn't need to be a specific sentence stating that "the subject is British" where a single reference is a British reliable source referring to crime in the UK.

In short, the arguments about deletion all seem to be arguments about individual entries - which should be deleted if not properly referenced - but they are not arguments about the article itself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are some completely invalid deletion arguments above. Deletion is based on whether the topic has notability, not the state of a Wikipedia article at any one time. I don't see that Gangs in the United Kingdom is in any danger of being deleted as non-notable, and this list clearly has reasonable overlap with much of the material we have already deemed acceptible for inclusion. I don't think WP:BEFORE was followed well here, if it was referenced at all. AFD is not concerned with whether an individual entry might possibly be mistakenly added to a list (otherwise List of clowns would be speedied to prevent editors from adding anyone they disliked to it). The basic topic has clear notability, it's reasonable to admit that a large number of subjects are decades past having BLP considerations, and the history of British organized crime is covered extensively by multiple reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as each entry is cited individually. Notable topic. --GRuban (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2014 (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.