Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California public officials charged with crimes

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. BLP concerns, largely per WP:CRIME, WP:BLPCRIME. joe deckertalk to me 23:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of California public officials charged with crimes

List of California public officials charged with crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely procedural nomination. Article blanked by User:AndyTheGrump on BLP grounds. Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, delete. And apologies for the somewhat drastic approach I took to this article - but the topic itself is such an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc, that it seemed the only appropriate course. Listing non-notable individuals who have been convicted of crimes is probably a BLP1E violation (taking into account the insignificance of some of the crimes alleged), but this article lists individuals acquitted of such charges too. In an ideal world, one could go through the article, remove all the acquittals, and all the convictions of non-notable individuals, and reduce the list to a core of significant corrupt Californian public officials - but even then, without a source that said that there was anything notable about the intersection between 'California' and 'crime by public officials', it would look like the breach of WP:SYNTHESIS that it is. It is entirely possible that California leads the world in official corruption (though I doubt it), but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum to engage in research to prove it. Without a source that explicitly states that public corruption in California is any more significant than anywhere else, the list can only be seen as political soapboxing, point-scoring, or a random accumulation of primary research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, it should be acknowledged that this list is well-organized and appears to be well-sourced, and that it represents an impressive organizational effort and a list that could be useful to anyone interested in the subject matter. Any conclusions about "soapboxing" are in the eye of the beholder: if this list is longer than other states' would be, it would most likely be only because California is by far the biggest state. Second, as a matter of American law, GeorgeLouis is right: these are public figures, and in principle there is no legal obstacle to reporting this kind of information. However, Wikipedia's BLP policies weigh more heavily to the side of privacy. One could try to resume a debate whether this should be so in all cases, but I do think the consensus has been clear in prior discussions that under WP policy only convictions would be permitted in a list like this. This very detailed list may have a home somewhere else on the web, at a platform with a less stringent policy on this issue, but probably not here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 'well sourced', can I draw your attention to (for example, just because I checked) 'Paul H. Richards II' - the article cites no source whatsoever, and instead links to our own article on Lynwood, California#Government and infrastructure - which in turn cites a "Campaign Legal Center Blog" as its sole source. Maybe this is entirely correct. Maybe Richards was a crook - but we don't have the appropriate level of sourcing to be asserting this, even in the Lynwood article: and we don't cite Wikipedia articles as a source, ever. I've not had the opportunity to look into the sourcing of this article in any great depth, but the closer I look, the less convincing it seems... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, although in that particular case the link actually leads to an FBI press release[1] and Richards' conviction is easily confirmed, e.g. by this Los Angeles Times article[2] (which, by the way, entailed "a sentence that federal prosecutors described as one of the longest in any U.S. public corruption case"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I've not (for obvious reasons) had the opportunity to look at each individual named on the list in detail - but that is rather the point. If one has to resort to searching for evidence oneself, rather than looking at sources actually cited in the list, the whole thing gets increasingly shaky. And on a purely practical perspective, citing one Wikipedia article from another (which is what is happening here) is asking for trouble - articles get altered, citations get replaced with others, and one can end up with an article that no longer supports the material it is being cited for. We shouldn't be doing this - and we don't as a matter of policy. Articles should be self-supporting regarding sources, particularly where contentious material is concerned. All this is rather peripheral to the real issue though - which is whether Wikipedia should include such 'lists' in the first place: and all the evidence I've seen is that the consensus is 'absolutely not'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as Rich says above, "Convictions and only convictions should be the hallmark of a list of this sort" - its been blanked - no need to wait. - Youreallycan 10:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is well-sourced and the topic seems quite notable. As an example of similar tertiary coverage elsewhere, see Political corruption in America: an encyclopedia of scandals, power, and greed. The page shown by that link documents the case of Richard Thomas Hanna in an encyclopedic way. This person is included in the list in question and, as that person is dead, BLP does not apply. This demonstrates that deletion is not appropriate and that ordinary editing to improve the quality of the article is what's needed. Relevant policies include WP:CENSOR and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply And relevant guideline contrary to this is WP:CRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A side issue re: sources. Atop the references section is the explanation References not on this page are in the articles cited. Access to some newspaper links may require the use of a library card. That's a terrific understatement--the balance of references link to the LA or SF library systems, and can not be accessed without a card. One is accustomed to accepting in good faith an article with several sources which can not be easily accessed, or require payment for access. There are 238 cites here, the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers. WP:SOURCEACCESS offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which can not be easily accessed, but I'm not sure that the guideline anticipated an article with some 200 such cites. Perhaps someone has encountered a similar situation here. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links are merely for courtesy. The citations all include the underlying newspaper information; if we didn't accept old newspapers, many articles would be significantly more difficult to write. The library links are at least gratis to those within the service area; I agree links to the newspapers' own archives or the underlying document database services might be preferable. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRIME. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional note: I fully support having a list of California public officials convicted of crimes, and I assume there is one. I simply think we shouldn't have lists of, or articles about, people who have been charged unless they have also been convicted. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the previous comments. This article, as it stands, is a violation of the BLP policy and in my opinion also is discouraged by WP:CRIME. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make matters clear: merge those entries pertaining to people who have articles and are otherwise notable--per convention for lists. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For further evidence of how this list is contrary to Wikipedia standards, see WP:LISTPEOPLE "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met... The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met..." How exactly does a ""Supervisor... indicted for rendering and collecting fraudulent claims against the county for road work on Union Avenue" - and then acquitted fall within such criteria? Do we have an article on the Road works in Union Avenue? The unorthodox way the article uses wikilinks between the names on the list and sections within it (which I've not seen used elsewhere) gives the misleading impression that we do have articles about these individuals. But no, almost al of these individuals neither meet Wikipedia notability requirements, and nor are they 'famous' for anything. Even those convicted of such crimes are not automatically suitable for inclusion on such lists unless (a) they independently meet Wikipedia notability standards, or (b) the crime in which they are involved in does. This is policy. If anyone thinks the policy is wrong, then propose that it be changed - but not here, we don't rewrite policy in AfD discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per AndyTheGrump. Yes, breaches numerous policies and guidelines and no reason to retain. Happy to support any convicted (and not quashed) entries to be listed within List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes but this article's editing history should not be retained to make that possible - in fact would probably support deleting then salting this one with a fully protected redirect to the list of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can only turn into a directory of BLP violations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The perfect Wikipedia article hasn't been written. It is well and accurately referenced. There should be such a list for every state in the union. I disagree with the inclusion requirements, but that's just tweaking. Richrakh (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you're giving a reason based on policy here--this is a variation on WP:ILIKEIT. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject does not appear to meet WP:BLP, any charges of crimes or convictions can be added in a neutral, due weight, manor to the subject's article. Perhaps this can be preserved as a category.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That rather presupposes that the person involved has an article in the first place. Most don't. And nor should they... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, with modifications and clarifications to the sources as needed. : There is nothing inherently wrong with a list of people charged with crimes and some of them later being cleared, or at least not convicted. (Wikipedia is full of articles about people who have ended up in just that sad situation.) The fact of their being charged—accused formally by a grand jury or a prosecutor—will always be findable by the inveterate Web surfer, but the rest of their stories demands to be told as well. Those who want to bowdlerize history should be ashamed of themselves, and I am just happy they are not working for the New York Times or Le Monde. There is a moral in this list to be stressed to every politician—that crime does not pay and that his or her sins, if such they be, will out. Likewise to every prosecuting attorney, the moral is to prepare your case well and to be prepared to lose as well as to win. For grand jurors: Don't be so sure that you are right, and always be wary of the political motives of your local district attorney. I am sure that is why this list has had more than a hundred hits almost every day it has run, thousands now—not because it is salacious, but because it is instructive. I can see individual attorneys, editors and students all over the state (maybe the nation or the world) consulting this list with eyes open and mouth agape, as it to ponder that, "I didn't know there were so many shady characters—or damaged souls—in local politics." If this article is deleted, or its focus changed, it will be a sad, sad time: Wikipedia shut down its site a few weeks ago and urged us to "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge." Right here, right now, today, some are demanding—not a world, perhaps, but at least a state of 37 million people—without free knowledge of those public officials who have either served them well and perhaps have been wrongly accused (and perhaps not)—or have raped them and have been made to pay the consequences. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your response, GeorgeLouis. Unfortunately, if there is a moral aspect to Wikipedia, it is something about knowledge, certainly, but not of the "name 'em and shame 'em" kind. We are not here to teach lessons to politicians (or mass murderers, or tax attorneys, or whatever), and that this info can be found on the internet is beside the point. You are not talking about knowledge in an encyclopedic sense: you are talking about a selection of raw data gathered for a specific purpose. And in this particular case, our BLP policy does say there is something inherently wrong with listing people who are only charged with a crime--really, that should be clear to you after reading over this discussion. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true, but the solution is to find out if these people are "living" or not, nicht war? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Notability. Not all the people on this list are Notable. If they were, they would have their own articles. Plenty of non-Notable people are included within articles about Notable people or within Lists of one sort or another. But to leave non-Notable people off any given list would make the list incomplete. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making your objectives clear, and your disregard for Wikipedia policy likewise. Yes, elected officials should be held accountable - but this isn't Wikipedia's job, for very good reasons - not least that opening up Wikipedia to such political partisanship is likely to make Wikipedia less reliable, and less respected as a source. If you want to make a political point, then do so - but not here. And if this point involves exposing political corruption, you have my full support - but this isn't an appropriate place to do it. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per already mentioned concerns re: BLP violations, listing of numerous non-notables, and finally, per WP:SOAPBOX, given the author's intent to create an article for editorial purposes. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being charged with the crime is not the same as guilty and convicted. I would think anyone who is charged then proved innocent would suddenly want to appear on this list on Wikipedia as per WP:BLP. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Every statement is now sourced - I went through the article and found sources for every statement but one, and I added a "fact" tag there. For some reason, the article has been blanked, even though there is a clear statement on the page that it can be edited. Oh, and I removed two people (from San Francisco and West Hollywood) who did not fit the criteria—their alleged crimes having taken place before they held office. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to tell us that after everything that has been written above, you don't understand why the article was blanked? Still, it's nice to have an admission that the article was violating policy for yet another reason. And no, you don't add "fact" tags to BLP violations - you delete them. This is policy. It isn't optional... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. I don't care how well sourced the article is: it has no useful purpose. Its only purpose seems, in fact, to be to expose people to public shame. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a medium for people to "expose" other people they wish to denigrate. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with James. Note that I declined the speedy because the comments are sourced, and they don't imply guilt but rather being "charged". However agree that the article should go.  7  12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the delete arguments, being charged with a crime does not make someone notable. If people on this list are notable then the information should be weighed to determine if it is important enough to be put into their article but this list does not belong. GB fan 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete non encyclopedic topic (no real "article" would need to be couch with "Those not convicted or those who were acquitted or whose convictions were overturned are legally presumed to be innocent.") and major BLP violations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not an encyclopedic subject. Whether the list is a BLP violation or not depends on its contents, but creating rogues galleries of this sort creates an unacceptably high risk of BLP violation, as there will always be a temptation to add non-notable people, people whose records are later expunged, and so on. That leads to incorrect information or blowing things out of proportion, which definitely would be a BLP violation. In a biographical article, we would ordinarily mention a crime if it is relevant to their notability, substantial, and (or?) has a significant effect on their life, career, or legacy. That kind of contextual judgment is much harder to enforce for lists, which is a prime reason this kind of list is unmanageable. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The last version of the full article was not a BLP violation, nor did it violate any policies. Every individual mentioned had an inline source (I added three to the one person with a cn tag); there is nothing that suggests that that the article violates WP:RS or WP:V (almost every entry is cited to a major California daily newspaper--the LA Times, SF Call, SF Chronicle or the San Jose Mercury News--I used three books to cover the final cn problem); and the article does not fail WP:NPOV. There is nothing in the article content or talk that suggests that the article's creator and primary contributor has some kind of bias against politicians in general, or against politicians charged with a crime and subsequently released. It is difficult to provide information about people convicted of crimes without making them sound "bad," but the language used was relatively neutral. References to various guidelines are not convincing. WP:CRIME just recommends that editors "give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Individual articles about such people were created by others--listing them here is not a violation of this guideline or of any policy. The criteria even screen out some individuals whose crimes are infractions that have nothing to do with their time in public office. Also note that criminal actions by and corruption of public officials is "notable" beyond what one might suspect based on the number of people involved or the amount of money--look at the biographies of Earl Warren and his memoir, which I cited in Burton Becker. GeorgeLouis did not find newspaper coverage of this person and his crimes, but it clearly existed at the time of the events and it shows up in every biography of Warren that covers his early carrer as a District Attorney in Alameda County. Corrupt sheriffs, county supervisors, mayors, councilmembers, and road commissioners are encyclopedic and suitable for inclusion in such a list, although not necessarily an individual article, especially if no other information about them is provided. There are hundreds of them in California who are clearly encyclopedic, mostly WP "notable," and sufficiently referenced in this list--how would you merge them to a national list? Finally, around half of the 200+ people on the list are dead and no legitimate BLP claim has been made about any of the others still listed. Here's a current link to Richards and the Lynwood story [3]. Editors should work on improving the article, clarifying or refining the selection criteria, and weeding out BLP issues with specific entries, if there are any. People might also remember to be civil and to assume good faith when responding to the creator and to any other Keep posts.--Hjal (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This post by Hjal is the latest in a string of posts from people insisting that the article is well sourced. This is something of a straw man argument. Although criticisms have been made of the sourcing, nobody has given that as the primary reason for wanting the article deleted. No matter how well sourced it is, an article that serves no purpose except to disparage or harass its subject falls foul of both Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10 and Wikipedia:Attack page, and should be deleted, in addition to the other reasons given for deletion. (This article would arguably qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G10, but it would be unhelpful to speedily delete it while it is the subject of so much active discussion here.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad enough that we have individual bios where we report on people accused of crimes, charged with crimes, investigated for crimes, but now we have a LIST just in case someone wants to see all of the BLP violations in one place.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per all the above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Everyone is guoting BLP. These are the policies.
Wikipedia's three core content policies:
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability (V)
  • No original research (NOR)
This article conforms to all three. KEEP. Birdshot9 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read them? for example from WP:V "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And have you read the comments by AndytheGrump who originally nominated the articles for deletion? To wit "If one has to resort to searching for evidence oneself, rather than looking at sources actually cited in the list, the whole thing gets increasingly shaky." (with others)
AndytheGrump's whole and original rational was that the article was poorly sourced. It is not. Later discussion has centered on, as Wikidemon states, "not an encyclopedic subject" whatever that means. The article should stay. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdshot9 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish: read what I wrote at the top of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at some of the other lovely lists Birdshot is interested in, and their comments here won't surprise you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's blatantly untrue. User:AndyTheGrump's whole and original rationale was that the topic was "an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc." That's not sourcing issues AT ALL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree with Andy, Stuart, and Bbb23. Accusations are not generally encyclopedic, and when an accusation (cf conviction) qualifies under WP:BLP1E or WP:BLPCRIME, a stand alone article would be more appropriate than a list because lists are not necessarily confined to notable individuals. With BLP vios, this article is not encyclopedic; without them, it's not even a list. Individuals actually convicted could most easily have a place at List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. JFHJr (㊟) 16:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I find that this article does Not violate WP:BLP. Slx03 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that you are not explaining why the article doesn't violate WP:BLP, given the large number of comments to the effect that it does: perhaps you need to study BLP policy more closely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recommend all similar lists of "accusations" be placed on AfD. Collect (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree, with a caveat: if a list article can be readily confined to notable accusations only (per title, by consensus on or change in applicable list guidelines, or any other fashion), the list should be kept. And while we can't change guidelines at AfD, we can think about how to apply them. Retitling to "List of notable xxxicans accused of war crimes," for example, might remedy the scope of some AfD-prone lists if a sufficient number of notable individuals exist, and a category alone would be insufficient. It's a high bar, but I think it would comport with WP:BLPCRIME as far as encyclopedic content. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 28 March 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_California_public_officials_charged_with_crimes&oldid=1069001376"