Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangster Disciples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gangster Disciples

Gangster Disciples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Rather dubious gibberings about some gang of thugs Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. The golden standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Nothing within this article appears to be readily verifiable. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The GDs are one of the most important postwar Chicago gangs among the most important in the U.S. generally, and much of their history is well-known and copiously documented. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources are plentiful: [1], [2]. The current article may be lousy, but there's no reason why we couldn't at least have a well-sourced stub by the time of this AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs some major help, but the name continues to be in the local Chicago media based on trials and criminial activities that continue to this day. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep GD is quite notable...even if it's only for being drug dealers and criminals. I seem to remember an article about GD moving from the streets and prisons, into the US Military...I'll see what I can dig up LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, they had an hour-long documentary on this gang on American Gangster (TV series) not too long ago. Has 3,130 Google News hits, 505 Google Books hits, and 286 Google Scholar hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I believe the abundance of independent coverage as demonstrated above asserts notability. WilliamH (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


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.