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. I doubt extending the debate would result in a consensus being reached. faithless (^speak) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic and (in places) poorly sourced article. If this sort of information is to be kept on Wikipedia it would be best represented by a category, however I would suggest that there is no need to list this info seperately and that a line or paragraph in each bio article would be sufficient.

This article is a series of untidy lists, each of which is so far from complete that it becomes misrepresentative, and is, in places, lacking references making it in violation of WP:PROVEIT and probably even WP:LIBEL. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's limited to actual convictions, rather than mere accusations; it's well-sourced, which is what is expected of Wikipedia articles. The objection is that it "is, in places, lacking"? Then edit it. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, the objection is not that it "is, in places, lacking", it is that it is totally unencyclopaedic. The fact that these people play sports professionally and have been convicted of crimes is totally unrelated. It is a trivial intersection. Can you really imagine finding such an article in any respectable encyclopedia? And what's next? List of television personalities who have received parking tickets? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article is not unreferenced and the details of the crimes are neutrally presented. As Mandsford says, improve the article rather than delete it. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As discussed at WT:FOOTY, I don't believe there are any problems with this list that aren't fixable. There's plenty of referenced material and plenty more that can be found. Incompleteness isn't a reason for deletion, nor is untidiness, nor are gaps in referencing. I have some concerns over WP:BLP, but like every single Wikipedia article, we need to remain vigilant for BLP breaches; we're hardly going to delete every single article. Again, that's no reason for deletion. The list is useful, can be NPOV and Verifiable. Why delete? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's well-sourced. If you doubt credibility of some particular sources, remove people whose crimes they're used to source, but deleting the page makes no sence. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see how this is notable, it certainly doesn't establish what the point is to this article, it's about as useful as List of righthanded sportspeople.John Hayes^talk 12:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a strawman argument. This is a useful list for anyone, for example, researching criminality in different sports. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  But it's not about criminality in sports, it's just a list linking two random facts, that these people are sportspeople, and at some point have been convicted of a crime. I would be happy to keep it if there was some sort of explaination of why this list exists, maybe showing that this is something which has been the subject of studies, etc. John Hayes^talk 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've replied below, how this is not linking two random facts. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Dweller -- Alexf⁴² 13:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely irrelevant intersection of occupation and conviction. No more relevant or encyclopaedic than a list of plumbers who like country music. - fchd (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Criminality in sportsmen is a notable issue in itself. As with the drugs in sport issue, it is a point often raised in serious debate of sportsmen as role models. As such, I find such a list to be not at all random or useless. You can disagree, but you can't disagree that others might find it useful. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:USEFUL? The crimes committed by the people on this list are, for the most part, completely irrelevant to their status as sportsmen. Drug-related ones may well be the exception. I still cannot see what purpose this intersection of two characteristics serves. I think we'll have to agree to disagree! - fchd (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – A lot of people seem to be jumping on the fact that I mentioned that the article is not referenced in places and that it is very far from complete. The only reason that I mentioned this was to illustrate the huge amount of work that would be required to bring the article up to a reasonable standard. As the list is totally unencyclopaedic I don't think that it is worth the effort. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I still haven't seen a good reason for keeping the article yet either. All of the arguments offered so far seem to amount to WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:HARMLESS, which are debatable anyway. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad you raised that. WP:ATA suggests "When taking part in deletion discussions, then, it is best to base arguments on the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not, or on Wikipedia guidelines.". So, let's take those in turn. The list is NPOV, does not depend on OR, fulfils V, can be monitored to protect BLP and is not covered by WP:NOT. So, where does this leave us? --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:NOT#DIRECTORY?

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.

I really don't see how this article can be considered encyclopaedic. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While it may fall under WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:HARMLESS, it is highly used by some teachers/coaches that I know to help keep their students in line. Although most people would not think this is very important, from an educational standpoint, I think it is prudent to show that athletes are not perfect it should be made easier to use as a cross reference to show that it also isn't a recent development in sports as well. I do recommend that it should be cleaned up overall, though. --Hourick (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but only if it aims to cover solely sportsmen who have been permanently convicted and have no legal chance to appeal the sentence. In addition, a source must be provided for every single name in the list in order to avoid risky consequences. --Angelo (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that suggestion is that I would imagine that the vast majority of references don't state whether or not the subject has any legal chance to appeal the sentence. It would also need several editors to keep a close watch over the article to filter out unsourced material which clearly isn't happening at present. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can understand that some people believe that this isn't encyclopedic. However, books have been written about the subject, such as Benedict & Yaeger's Pros and Cons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL (Warner Books, 1998), which made the point that there a good deal of convicted criminals who play pro ball and, because of their celebrity status, tend to get away with it. Celebrities are just like you and me, except when it comes to sentencing. Many of us believe that it is encylopaedic if a notable person has been convicted of a criminal offense, and a sourced list -- emphasis on sourced -- is what separates the guilty from the accused. I agree with the nominator that a list of celebrities who got parking tickets would be absurd... Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I really don't know what it's like outside the USA, but here celebrities (including professional sportpeople) are always getting in trouble, and the media is always highlighting the events. Nobody cares about the event of a celebrity getting a parking ticket, but because many celebrities are highlighted because of their criminality, this is potentially a useful list (aside from referencing problems etc). If people are always paying attention to celebrities because they did certain things, I can't see why it would be a problem to have a sourced, NPOV article about such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although it may seem as if these are two unrelated traits, there is a long history of scandals affected teams or entire leagues when individual players become involved in criminal acts, and they receive (quite possibly unwarranted) coverage over time making the events notable. Frequently there are career-altering effects for the individuals. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a trivial intersection of categories. Are there reliable third party sources who have written about the importance of sports celebrities whith criminal conviction as a group, rather than the generous coverage of each one convicted of homicide or dog fighting? Unless the juxtaposition of sports partici[ation and crime has reliable attestation, the article is as arbitrary as Astronauts with bald spots , News presenters allergic to cats or Internet notables whose clothes are for sale on Ebay.If we have to keep it, could we perhaps save server space by replacing it with List of sports figures who have not been convicted of a crime? Edison (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  3.1 million Google hits for "crime in sport". Many deal with sport used in crime prevention, but others with our topic. Here's a heavyweight one from the 2nd page of G-hits: [1] --Dweller (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure whether delete / keep, but I'm certainly wary that the British legal system includes Rehabilitation of Offenders, whereby offences are "spent" after a certain period of time. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The deletion nomination reasons are wrong on every count. It is well sourced, it is a topic of encyclopedic interest as is plainly obvious by the fact that it has been the subject of books, and it is not a trivial intersection of categories. It isn't a category at all, and shouldn't be. It's an excellent example of why this sort of subject is better treated in a list, as individual entries can be sourced and annotated. Persons commenting here that it is a trivial intersection are not knowledgable about the subject, as it has also been the subject of academic study. Quale (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's quite a bit of commentary on the issue of crime among sportspeople, so this is not just a random intersection of two qualities. As for the arguments along the lines of "What about List of newscasters who are allergic to cats," then if at some point there starts to be significant commentary (multiple articles and books written) about the unusually high prevalence of cat allergies among newscasters, then yes, at that point we should have List of newscasters who are allergic to cats too. In response to the claim that a close eye would have to be kept on the article to avoid addition of unnecessary information, yes, that's certainly true but not a reason to delete. I certainly have at least a couple of articles on my watchlist where people often add unsourced and OR examples, but that's not a reason to delete those articles. Chuck (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just to quote my statement from the original AFD - 'Here are some web pages I found in three minutes on Google - [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. 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." If there is any living person on the list who's conviction is not sourced, they should be removed, but it's clearly not a trivial intersection. CitiCat ^♫ 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP, WP:NPF Are these people notable for the crime? in some cases yes, in others no. Tonya Harding, yes, Naseem Hamad, no. Plenty of others have done the same crimes, where is their mention. Do no harm, presumption in favour of privacy etc. At very least, limit it to persons whose crime is related to their notability.--ClubOranje (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  We do no harm, and break no privacy by relating sourced negativity about living people. We harm and break privacy when we use unsourced material. And incompleteness isn't a reason for deletion either. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 10 March 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.