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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional athletes who have been convicted of crimes[edit]

List of professional athletes convicted of crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete per WP:NOT collection of indiscriminate information. Else rename to List of professional athletes who have been convicted of a felony. Gilliam 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:NOT#INFO includes five specific things that, by consensus, we exclude (plot summaries, FAQs, etc.). This list is none of those five, which means opinions rather than policy are being given to delete the article. That's a valid argument, but it still must be said that there is no policy mandate to delete this article.--Chaser - T 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if moved to "felony" it's still a non-notable juncture. Lots of people are convicted daily, not just athletes but ordinary people. This list is WP:IINFO totally indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though it's not an obvious application of the "indiscriminate information" policy. If we compare lists to categories (which we often do), we realize that "athletes" and "convicted criminals" is an offbeat intersection of two unrelated human characteristics (see criteria at WP:CFD). So it doesn't make sense to have a list about this offbeat intersection. That being said, it should be confirmed that each individual article has the reference among its references before the admin hits "delete." Shalom ^Hello 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citicat referenced most of this. He could probably tell you or either of us could check it after a deletion.--Chaser - T 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This one needs work, obviously, but the format is good and it is well-documented, a rare treasure in a Wikipedia article. Ordinary people are convicted daily of felonies, true; but professional athletes, like politicians or actors, aren't ordinary. It helps to have an accurate source about which athletes have been charged, convicted and sentenced; and what they were actually convicted of, since this isn't well known. I think the criteria for inclusion are well defined, with a mix of the famous and the infamous. Mandsford 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename List of professional athletes convicted of felony. It is not indiscriminate, nor is it a particularly offbeat intersection. It's major news when it happens, and there's no other good way to get all the info in one place. Clarityfiend 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this is the textbook definition of a trivial intersection. WP:OC Corpx 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might be easier to compile a list of pro athletes who have not been convicted of crimes. ~ Infrangible 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously it could run into being a rather large list, but I think an article like this could prove quite useful if done right. MrSec 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of professional athletes who have been convicted of a felony per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of sportspeople convicted of a crime per Golfcam. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename Please do not rename like this. Felony is a US-specific word with no official meaning in most other jurisdictions, and therefore would be a clear case of WP:BIAS. No opinion on whether or not the article should be deleted. JulesH 09:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as random trivia. If kept rename to List of sportspeople convicted of a crime. Not only is "felony" U.S. centric, but so is this usage of "athlete", and many of the most prominent sportspeople in history were amateurs (especially outside the U.S.). Golfcam 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:IINFO There are probably notable sources, but there's no reason to have a seperate list from the article on the athlete. i  ^{(said) (did)} 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Disclaimer - I am the creator and primary contributor to this article. I consider "indiscriminate" the most overused word in AFDs (see my comments on the AFD talk page awhile back). If you are sports fan, you know that criminality among athletes is an oft-discussed and oft-reported subject. I created this article to bring together the many pieces of information on this subject (which were usually not complete). I certainly feel there is nothing "indiscriminate" about it. CitiCat ^♫ 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I learned of this list a few weeks ago, I instinctively understood that it was valuable, but didn't really know why. Now I think I know why. The criminal justice system's handling of celebrity crimes always attracts media attention and is an important test of the system's ability to be fair under pressure and scrutiny (think Michael Jackson's molestation case, Kobe Bryant's rape case, OJ Simpson, etc.). Celebrity criminality, whether the celebrities are athletes, actors, or musicians, also occupies a special place in assessments of whether the media can fairly cover the police and legal proceedings. While this list is a long way from an article on celebrity crimes, it could well be a valuable research tool for someone investigating this topic. It's not overcategorization, though perhaps it needs to be changed into a list of very notable celebrities who have been convicted of crimes.--Chaser - T 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chaser and I also wish to comment that I agree almost completely with CitiCat about the cut and paste overuse of "indiscriminate" on these discussions. Terms like this one seem almost insulting to editors who work hard on articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in regards to the name, I've struggled with it, weighing readability versus accuracy. Perhaps the most accurate would be List of athletes who have been convicted and incarcerated, but it doesn't roll off the tounge. Also, I think the word "crimes" is a useful search term. So the search continues. CitiCat ^♫ 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is why this trivial intersection exists. Are athletes more likely to commit crimes? What about List of professional accountants who have been convicted of crimes or any other profession? Corpx 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Here are some web pages I found in three minutes on Google - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Would you like me to try twenty minutes? I don't think you can find this kind of interest in accountants who have committed crimes. CitiCat ^♫ 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and rename This article would come in handy as a teaching tool for couches for quick research. But I also recommend a new category in which EVERY notable athlete that is convicted OR indicted be included. Again, this would be a great research tool.Hourick 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Citicat. This particular intersection of characteristics does seem to have generated a large amount of media attention, and can therefore be considered notable. This is enough that the list is not indiscriminate. But still, per my previous comment, don't rename. JulesH 19:55, 27 July 2007 (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.