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 no consensus, at least - numerous sources were added after the "delete" opinions were given. Sandstein (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arifs (gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No clear reason why this gang is notable. There are claims of serious crimes, but this would be expected for any criminal gang. Any claims lack verifiability due to a lack of sources. The single source only briefly mentions the gang. Mark is ace (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The passing mention in a single article does not meet the requirement of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only one trivial reference creates a WP:BLP issue here, since most of the stuff in that article is controversial and unverifiable. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 11:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• StayThe Arifs have grown in power during 1998, it would be silly to delete this entry. Many of the facts there can't be verified due to the lack of evidence online but may be true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifs1 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - I don't think there can be any question as to the notability of the Arif bros.--there's an overwhelming amount of coverage in UK papers. I added a few quotes and cites, but the article could use expansion.Wageless (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, providing the offline references can be vetted to confirm that they actually support the assertions in the article. I'm curious as to why someone would have built such a list (did it come from a magazine article or academic paper?) and would like to see as many as possible converted to online references, which should be possible at least for those post-1998 or so. --MCB (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2008 (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.