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. There is consensus that that this topic meets our inclusion criteria. There is not yet a consensus on whether this should be an independent article or covered in Gangs in Australia but that merge discussion can continue outside of AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in Australia[edit]

List of gangs in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Overwhelmingly unsourced, ill-defined list. There's none or negligible evidence that some of these without articles exist at all, and there's no evidence that some of the rest exist in Australia. Not sure how this got out of AfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Abhishek0831996. Deleting the unsourced content and preserving that which is sourced is a fast better idea then deleting it outright. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this encyclopedic content at all? The couple of attempts at similar lists in other countries seem to have also resulted in an unverified, unverifiable mess, with the few sources provided being of extremely poor quality, and I'm not really seeing how this could be fixed to turn out otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do personally think it it encyclopedic, but I can understand why others wouldn't agree. Every entry, linked or otherwise, should be accompanied by a verifiable source, which is the current problem with the article. I'm off to go add the template ((Dynamic list)), and will keep a close eye on this page to ensure editors don't continue to add unsourced entries. For those interested, articles on gangs can be found here, here, here (subscription only), here, here, here, and here. Some of these name-drop specific gangs, but I guess my point is that if research is done properly, this could be a well-sourced, well-maintained list. The issue isn't notability, it's the list's current state. I don't think it is fit for deletion. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do take your point. Looking at those sources, I wonder if a better idea would be to merge this article into Gangs in Australia - they-re good general sources as opposed to something that helps us establish an encyclopedic list. (It also occurs to me reading those sources that this doesn't seem to have any working definition of what a "gang" is, which has led to the sprawling mess it's currently in. Is that a fixable problem?) The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's certainly an option worth considering, and I would be in favour of that as an alternative to deleting it. And I think the (contextual) definition of "gang" certainly needs clarifying (which is probably at least part of the reason this list is in the state it is). There's clearly a few misconceptions about what constitutes one, and it's resulted in what's a bit of a mess. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, into Gangs in Australia, it appears that gangs that do not have linked articles are cited, wile those with articles are not. So just a case of transferring a cite from each article. If those articles are uncited, probable they would have been deleted. Nouraudes (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no sources for those with linked articles necessarily having anything to do with Australia whatsoever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just gone through the first 5 uncited articles in the Aboriginal-based and Asian triads sections and all have dedicated section or at least make mention of Australia. Nouraudes (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete complete synth POV, conflates motorcycle gangs, organised criminals, white supremacists ... with Indigenous people? Utterly fails WP:NLIST, there is simply no logical consistency to the use of "gang" (and never could be in this context). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gangs in Australia as alternative to deletion. No sourced content to merge. Deus et lex (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Gangs in Australia -- Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most entries have their own pages thus it does not fail WP:NLIST. Merge or redirect is not an AfD concern. NavjotSR (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the entries have no sourcing to demonstrate any link to Australia at all; that they exist, somewhere, is not evidence that they exist in Australia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the list provides a good way to locate the articles about individual notable gangs. When I checked the sources when I originally assessed this article, I noted that a number of the citations were also lists of gangs that had only been cited once, rather than for every name, so the problem seems to be that each gang name has not been linked by a citation that it appears in, not that it is unsourced. I would also oppose a merger with Gangs in Australia, because that article is already quite sizeable and it barely touches the sides of the topic. I don't think it even talks about how Australia is using gang membership to deport 501's to other countries and as a result exporting Australian gang culture across the Tasman. I see this list as a companion index for the Gangs in Australia article, as the list would be the first thing split out if that article to stop it getting too large. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: 2260 words of readable prose ("Gangs in Australia") is now considered "quite sizeable"? There is a problem concerning Outlaw MC's or bikie gangs. How many "lists" are needed? Organised crime in Australia has a more in-depth section on MC gangs although the embedded list is not as large. There is also List of criminal enterprises, gangs, and syndicates#Australian organized crime. While creating articles is a good thing there needs to be less redundant coverage. If it starts to look like gangs outnumber the general population this can't be good for tourism. If the sharks, snakes, and spiders don't get you then you might want to look out for the gangs. As for as sourcing I randomly picked Romanian mafia and did find "coverage in Australia". -- Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Useful list and does not fail WP:NLIST. Afd is not a clean up tool.BabbaQ (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful list and passes Nlist.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a useful wikipedia list article. Nitesh003 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for meeting WP:NLIST. I hate a lot of lists here. I see The Drover's Wife's point about it potentially degenerating into a hot mess, and I've seen it many times before. But, it's not a reason to invoke WP:TNT - yet. Ifnord (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a case of "potentially degenerating into a hot mess", it's already a hot mess, and none of these people posting one-liners about how it's "useful" explains why they think that's the cases. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge the useful content to the main page, since Gangs in Australia seems to be a quite decent article. I'm not sure if this one was written before it, or without knowledge of it, or what; it's not clear that we are deriving a lot of encyclopedic value from having a list as a separate page from a prose article going over the exact same subject in greater detail. If there wasn't an article ready for this to be merged into, I would be saying to keep it, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me for there to be two separate pages with largely duplicate scope. jp×g 07:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this is a sensible solution that addresses The Drover's Wife's concerns about conflation of different topics (which hasn't been addressed), allows any good content to be put somewhere (though I'm not sure there is much that can be other than references) but doesn't just entirely delete the article. Deus et lex (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2021 (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.