Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable graffiti posses

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list claims notability but most names seem to be red-linked (many blue links lead to disamb pages). There is no criteria for inclusion either in this list or in a posse. The list is translated from a French list and is unrepresentally biased towards France and the US with no prospect of extension. Simply unencyclopaedic, Delete. BlueValour 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too fluid and impossible to verify. Extract from some document or a book may be useful but not such a raw list who knows from where. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redlnk farm, and the few links that are blue are mostly other stuff with the same name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fundamentally subjective. Dekimasu 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopaedic. Useless list with no real links. Emeraude 11:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unverifiable source of red links Marcus22 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should be relocated to a wikiproject or talk page as it is a good reference list for investigating articles to be written about notable graffiti crews/posses. Someone should start a graffiti crews category sorted by nationality just as there is a graffiti artists category functioning properly on wikipedia. MediaClemz
• Comment Should be merged with List of graffiti artists, under the new title 'list of graffiti artists and graffiti groups. A very similar debate arose over the artists page, the result was no consensus (keep). I feel most of the arguments for that page would be very similar for this page... PeterPartyOn 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Furthermore, pages such as these with many red links should not be seen as a waste of space, but as an opportunity for growth. I understand the need to delete articles, however I think some people are very hasty when it comes to deletion, especially towards graffiti articles for some reason. Instead of deleting like mad men... try and turn some of the red links into the blue links, that's what we're here for...PeterPartyOn 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's part of the problem, though. The red links encourage people to create these articles, when in reality the articles, if they existed, would be deleted for sure. Creating them would just waste time on both ends, as Wikipedia would have to go through the deletion process, not to mention the time wasted by some poor sap writing the article. That's why articles with massive amounts of redlinks aren't generally a good thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you're saying is no article on graffiti posses deserves to exist? Anyone creating one would be a sap? And by extension an article on say the CIA or Chrome Angelz (both of which are currently redlinked) is less deserving than say one on Cookie Puss? Doesn't that display systemic bias?--duncan 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, let's grab three random redlinks off the list:
        • "Cold Minded Killas" or "Chicago Mind Kontrol" = no Google hits at all for the former, one hit for the latter, and it's a forum thread. No Google news hits fo either. No Google Books hits for either.
        • "Time 4 Some Krime" = one Google hit, and it's a mirror of this article. No Google news hits. No Google Books hits.
        • "Yoghurt Culture Kids" = one Google hit, and it's this article. No Google news hits. No Google Books hits.
      • None of the above meet our current standards for verifiability using reliable sources as far as I can tell, and none would be likely to survive an AfD. Can I make the authoritative statement that "no article on graffiti posses deserves to exist"? No, I cannot. But anybody going through that list and writing articles on all the redlinks is likely wasting their time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no conspiracy to remove or delete graffiti art articles. I imagine most Wiki editors are in full support of having graffiti art properly covered. But with the emphasis on 'properly'. This article - as is the other - is just a frequently abused spam magnet. Much better to let each posse have an article on their own merits. Marcus22 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm not suggesting a 'conspiracy', but more of widespread attitudes and misconceptions. Also, as I've argued repeatedly, google hits are a poor measure of graffiti artist's notability as many high profile graffiti artists avoid any publication of their identities...
  • I know what you mean. You want to further the cause of graffiti art on Wikipedia and change people's negative attitudes? Fine. I'd support that. But you can't and won't succeed by bending the rules or setting-up special criteria by which the 'worth' of a posse or artist is to be judged. Sure google is the not the best judge of these things, and graffti art is harder to substantiate - but that's all the more reason you need to dig deep and provide proper sources. If you don't, then time and time again graffiti articles will be up for AfD. In the meantime this article should go. You need to recreate all/any/most of the posse articles with proper sources. Once that is done this article could be recreated - so long as it is then properly maintained to keep the spam out. Marcus22 08:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without criteria for inclusion lots of groups listed are nn, unmaintainable, and ultimately unencyclopedic. Eluchil404 05:54, 12 October 2006 (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.