Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitlers henchmen
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 delete due to concerns about verifiability, reliable sources, and notability. — TKD::Talk 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hitlers henchmen
- Keep, Can say im a kiwi and I have been informed of this gang during my time living in Christchurch. Never saw them, but they were common knowledge among the public. The group appears to me very scarce. This would explain the lack of sources, but I can say that I did see their appearance on the TV show "Outrageous Fortune" this alone is enough for me to say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnorar (talk • contribs)
- Keep, it is lacking sources sure enough but it is a very well written article and being a New Zealander myself I was pleased to see this gang is on Wikipedia. They have an important role in the NZ gang heirarchy and are by any means notable. Most of the information seems correct enough but I am going to go on a good search for sources because i can see why its an issue. Try to give it a chance though it is really good to see this gang mentioned. ragnorar 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No sources (the one provided doesn't work), can't find any relevant google hits. Prod for sources was removed without any improvement to the article. Delete. gadfium 00:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The article pretty much asserts that the gang (assuming it actually exists) is not notable, and the lack of sourcing certainly doesn't help. -- Kicking222 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. KTC 04:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the lack of sourcing and apparent non-noatbility. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -Drdisque 08:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
WeakKeep, it is at least a very pretty and well structured article.... but that is only a minor point in its favour. Currently the strongest reason for it being kept is their appearance in Outrageous Fourtune, which is very borderline to as if that is enough. However if I assume what is in the rest of the article is true... perhaps then the case for keeping it is much much stronger. However, there is the trouble of sources. Considering the nature of the subject of the article and the point in time they were around it is very understandable that it could be difficult to dig up the sources that would have existed about them. So as such I'm willing to be more generous on this point. Thus I come to a conclusion of Keep (but at first I was borderline to make it merely a weak keep). Mathmo Talk 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)- Keep I googled them they seem notable enough. Jmm6f488 10:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – I also goggled and was only able to find one article on the group, and that was a blog. However, there were over 200,000 hits on the real Hitler’s henchmen Shoessss | Chat 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Jmm6f488. --xDanielxTalk 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to establish and prove that this group is notable. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2007 (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.
