Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos

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 merge to Juggalo. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos (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)

Article was created in bad faith, makes unsubstantiated allegations about a music fanbase, ignores WP:NPOV. BigBabyChips (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This should have been merged. Unjustified as a separate article: inherently POV. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no policy or guideline based reason for deletion. The topic is clearly notable, with on-topic info from numerous reliable sources. Yes, some sources disagree with the classification. (The article title isn't the best.) This is a call for balance, not deletion. I see no indication the article was created in bad faith. (Nominating editor's conflict with creating editor does not make the article "bad faith".) NPOV calls for balance in an article based on adding content from reliable sources. It does not call for deleting well-sourced articles on notable topics or removing reliable sources (National Gang Intelligence Center and FBI are certainly reliable sources for this article). - SummerPhD (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Objection - There is obvious bias with the National Gang Intelligence Center and FBI, as they do not provide any evidence for justifying their classification of a music fanbase as a gang. In fact, this is the reason why Insane Clown Posse are suing the FBI, because the FBI refused to provide evidence to justify their categorization of "Juggalo" as a gang, and the FBI are supposed to provide information to the public on these issues per the Freedom of Information Act. Also, this issue involves living people who are negatively affected by the allegations, as these fans face violence from actual gangs due to this false classification. BigBabyChips (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "bias". Typical usage indicates prejudice of some kind. Denial of a FOIA request does not indicate prejudice. (If the FBI/NGIC used informants within the Juggalos to gather their info, much of that info would not be subject to disclosure under FOIA, for example.) If your claim of bias is based on that non-disclosure, it is erroneous. Both sources are reliable sources. What they have to say about Juggalos is verifiable. Whether or not you agree with them is another matter; one that is wholly irrelevant here. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the claims about Juggalos are NOT verifiable. There is NO EVIDENCE of the existence of ANY Juggalo gangs, or gang activity. Juggalo is not a gang, it is a music fanbase. Evidence that "Juggalo" is a music fanbase is widespread and easy to be found. The lawsuit against the FBI is entirely about the fact that the FBI has refused to provide evidence to justify their clearly false allegations about a rap group's fanbase. For you to completely ignore the issue at hand shows a CLEAR bias on your part, and for you to basically defend Niteshift36, who is a bigot, is extremely revealing of your clear bias. Describing Juggalos as a "gang" shows a clear prejudice. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we call them a gang. I am suggesting that we report that the FBI called them a gang. (If the FBI did not call them a gang, why is the band suing the FBI?) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding "Juggalo" as an ally of a REAL GANG is, in fact, calling "Juggalo" a gang. --BigBabyChips (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge. This should be merged into the Juggalo article. There is a lot of redundancy and some other questionable tactics that are making this article look more relevant than it is. I made a quick pass to clean up some of it. Might do more later. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Niteshift36 has attacked Juggalos and other editors, as seen here where he refers to me as a "troll" for asking for verifiable information and neutral writing. Shows clear bias in editing. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, when you act like a troll, you get called a troll. Stating my opinion that ICP fans have horrible taste in music isn't really an attack, but if that makes you feel better, keep saying it. None of that, however, changes my !vote here or the rationale behind it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am not, in fact, acting like a troll, I am calling you on your obvious bias against a MUSIC FANBASE by repeatedly calling them a gang in spite of evidence because of your anti-capitalist belief that Insane Clown Posse does not have the right to free enterprise, your anti-first amendment belief that ICP and Juggalos do not have the right to free speech and your general anti-freedom attitude that a MUSIC FANBASE that you don't like should be listed as a gang because you think that ICP is horrible. Now, secondly, since you do not know what kind of music I listen to, I think that you should chill on the "horrible taste in music" comment, since I'm willing to bet good money that I HAVE BETTER TASTE IN MUSIC THAN YOU, so STOP CALLING ME A TROLL because YOU ARE THE ONE that is, in fact, trolling, by repeatedly asserting that A MUSIC FANBASE which includes Charlie Sheen is somehow a "GANG". BigBabyChips (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• When you are told not to post on a user page and continue to do it, you're a troll. Further, I've never stated what music you listen to. Once again, you just make stuff up and act like it's true. So sad. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• I haven't "made up" anything. --BigBabyChips (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete and merge I wrote the bulk of this article, and after talking with some local non-gang Juggalos and a law enforcement officer, I've had a change of heart. Now that I understand a little bit more about Juggalos, I agree that this is biased and should be deleted, and a completely separate article on the Juggalo criminal organization should be written. This one doesn't fairly differentiate between the Juggalo gang and the Juggalo fan group, not to mention things like the Robida and Syko Sam cases had nothing to do with gang activity. This lines up with the National Gang Intelligence Center report, which states that the Juggalo gang and the Juggalo fans are completely different animals. This article should be deleted and merged into the main article until a newer, unbiased article on the Juggalo gang subject is written. AnnerTown (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, apparent spinout, meets GNG on its own. --Nouniquenames 05:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and the article's author, above. In order to remain neutral, we need to clearly differentiate between Juggalo and Juggalos (gang). This title, and the content provided, does not do that - Keeping this article would be making the same mistake that the FBI made. Since it has already been redirected, I think we're done here - am not sold on keeping the title as a redirect, but that's an issue for WP:RFD if and when. We can close this up I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment — I'm not convinced that it can be proven that there is such a thing as a "Juggalo gang". Anyone can claim to be a gang. A few suburban kids claiming to be gang members doesn't make them so, and a gang member who happens to be a Juggalo doesn't necessarily mean there is a "Juggalo gang". Also, I've pointed out that Juggalos are against racism, so anyone alligned with Aryan Brotherhood or whatever is not a Juggalo. BigBabyChips (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources say there is such a thing as a Juggalo gang, Wikipedia says there is such a thing as a Juggalo gang. If reliable sources say they are aligned with the Aryan Brotherhood, that's what Wikipedia should say. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:NPOV disagree with you, "pal". BigBabyChips (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they do not. Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources is very clear that contentious material about living persons must cite reliable sources. The sources saying the FBI calls them a gang include the FBI. There is absolutely no disputing that the FBI calls them a gang. The sources saying various states call them a gang include the FBI. If you have any remaining doubt that the FBI and several states have called them a gang, there is no point in discussing this. (Additionally, BLP does not apply to statements about unidentified subsets of a larger group.)

WP:NPOV specifically "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Numerous major press outlets have reported that the FBI and several states call them a gang. NOT including that would violate NPOV. That you disagree with that significant view does not negate that view. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Summer, your explaination is spot on. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Frankly this whole thing smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nominator is also warned to refrain from personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. An entirely unnecessary fork of an article itself of questionable merit. The Juggalos (gang) article relies almost entirely on quetionable primary sources, and I've already had to delete two gross WP:BLP violations from it. The last thing we need is this sort of nonsense spread over multiple articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete due to the improved article at Juggalo (gang). STATic message me! 22:03, 29 January 2013 (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.