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. After two re-lists and a WP:HEY by Dmehus, no desire to Delete, and a consensus to Keep which was unchallenged by any Deletes (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Soldiers[edit]

Independent Soldiers (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)

Non-notable "Club" (which seems to be a euphemism for "gang"?). No inline references, and of the remaining footnotes, most are passing mentions only. There are two sources that are not obvious passing mentions:

• [1] - I'm not familiar with what "mapinc.org" is but it appears to be re-publishing an article from a different sources (possibly a copyvio issue) and is otherwise fairly routine coverage - police seized a handgun and a crossbow, and there was a bar fight.
• [2] - second does go into more detail on a specific concern related to a member of the "club" having been released from prison in 2006, however, those concerns don't seem to have materialized, as there's no newer reference material available at all.

This article seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There is well-documented, reliable and independent press coverage from CBC News, Postmedia-owned newspapers, The Globe and Mail, the Kelowna Daily Courier, and the like. I've added two sources and rewrote much of the second paragraph. Does this article need work? Yes, but AfD is not cleanup. @Bearcat: is involved in a number of noteworthy Canadian-focused articles and may have an opinion, or be able to cite additional WP policies and/or sources that established notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per your first linked source, that is the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. The article was originally published in the Kelowna Daily Courier and, presumably, reprinted with permission from that newspaper. No copyright violation here—none with respect to Wikipedia, which is what we care about. It's common for newspapers to permit non-profits and companies to re-publish their own news articles. Regarding your second linked source, that may be more useful as it provides important and substantive background information on this notable British Columbia gang, but I haven't yet integrated it into the article. I've added a number of sources, all of which establish its notability in a significant way. We're up to 7-10 sources, but more are definitely possible. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am seeing coverage in reliable sources. We have some cleanup issues, however WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:NTEMP is also relevant, since it was once notable it will always be notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Lightburst, thanks...I tried to do a bunch of cleanup—check out its diff before I made my first edit when this article was nominated. It was incorrectly classified as a club instead of what it is, a street gang. It felt kind of odd that one of my few !keep votes at AfD was for a notorious street gang.

  Also, do you think we can safely remove those bulleted Internet Archive references that I converted to fully formed citations? Could probably add those URLs to the applicable citations as "archiveurl," but haven't had the time to do that. Beyond that, we may want to sort the order of the paragraphs so it flows chronologically—save for the Lede. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• yes i saw right off this was a gang of some notoriety. I thought it odd that there would be a gang in BC. Layout is definitely something that should be improved. And the bulleted refs must be tied to the part of the article they represent, and then converted. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Lightburst, Yeah, I didn't added those bulleted refs...I'll leave them for now in case someone wants to use those URLs to add in the IA archive URLs and dates. Doug Mehus T·C 00:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Lightburst, Okay, I put the events in chronological sequence, added the archive-URL and archive-date attributes to the remaining footnotes, moved two of the currently unused bulleted refs to Talk:Independent Soldiers#Bulleted citations removed, then removed all the bare URL bulleted references. Only one URL I couldn't move to the page's Talk page due to nothing being in Internet Archive. I think the article is in a reasonably good shape now. Should I assess it as stub- or start-class, and do you think I would be OK to classify it as mid-importance to the WikiProjects? Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 10 November 2019 (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.