Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disbarred lawyers

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. The comments by JzG and slakr are particularly insightful. There is a very real risk of "guilt by association," notable disbarments can be covered in specific biographies (perhaps with a category), and having a list solely for lawyers seems to unnecessarily introduce bias into the encyclopedia as a whole. The voting was pretty close, but given the sensitive nature of this article (especially the demonstrable fact that it has been a BLP issue) moves me to close as delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of disbarred lawyers

List of disbarred lawyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP is a big concern here. Only five entries are referenced, not sure what the quality of those refs are, but what's the encyclopedic aspect of this? If this is somehow kept, the "Have a credible source citing his disbarment (either in his article or in a note here)" should be changed to require a credible source in this list. Lara 05:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The focus of this article is negative, and contentious. Also gives undue weight. There is no biographical or encyclopaedic value. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. i think WP is better off with this material in the body of the articles on the lawyers, fully and accurately referenced, and as a category, which already exists. this is not adding anything important, and would be the biggest possible magnet for BLP violations, esp. if a non-disbarred lawyer was listed. that would simply be the WORST THING IN THE WORLD for WP, if you think about it. (these comments still true, but superceded by Childofmidnights name change below, im inclined towards keep only if name change and rigorous watching done)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What does changing the name fix? Who gets disbarred other than lawyers? The name change is completely pointless and does nothing to address any issues. Lara 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Overall this list is not encyclopedic, but more troubling is the non-neutral aspect of the individual entries. Kevin (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - largely unencyclopedic, plus the lack of references makes it a BLP issue. Given the nature of the subject, the references would need to be impeccable - Alison ^❤ 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Impossible to make this article balanced. No encyclopedic value as is, and impossible to complete. delete as not a good use of our time. Plus per BLP concerns. ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment From the all the comments above is it not really time to create Wikipedia:Encyclopaedic value? "Encyclopaedic value" is a circular argument whereby EV is in the eye of the beholder or the last refuge of the scoundrel, depending upon your POV on any particular topic. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this coatrack for lawyer-hate. In the unlikely event this is kept at AfD, it needs to be renamed "List of disbarred American lawyers".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure how the article got into its current state; when I first created it it had a large number of famous historical cases of disbarment from various countries dating back to the 17th century. However, to address some of the concerns raised here:
  • Negative focus. The focus of this article is no more "negative" than those we maintain for other notable (suspected) miscreants, such as Impeachment investigations of federal Judges or the lists in Category:Lists of criminals.
  • BLP concerns. The BLP concerns are the same as with the aforementioned articles, and are avoidable if the material is properly sourced. I would say that if, in the present article, any particular disbarment summary is seen as overly negative or biased, then it should simply be reworded, if possible by quoting from the original ruling or from newspapers of record.
  • Contentious material. The material is not "contentious"; disbarment either demonstrably happened or it didn't. According to legal records it can be definitely established whether it happened, where it happened, and for what cause.
  • Notability. Disbarment for otherwise public figures (such as those already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article) is rare and almost always notable in itself; mainstream news and historical sources typically give such events coverage, and many disbarred lawyers are often referred to as such so often that it becomes a notable aspect of their character.
  • Impossible to complete. Whoever raised this concern is generalizing the scope of the article far outside of Wikipedia's notability guideline. Of course the goal of the article is not to list every disbarment in history; rather, it is meant to list disbarments of notable lawyers (or notable disbarments of otherwise unnotable lawyers, though I doubt there are any such cases).

I think this addresses all the objections. And if we could add back the notable historical cases deleted from the article, and find some references for them, the article would be in a much more encyclopedic and useful state. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or strip to historically notable disbarrments. BLP magnet, and seems to focus only on US lawyers at present. May be better as a category. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We do have a category, but there is no such thing as having to choose between a category or a list. Both formats work for someone, and which one works better is a matter of opinion. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - clearly unacceptable and unencyclopaedic as a list - I note Psychonaut's defence but I am not persuaded that this list does anything more than increase the already huge potential for BLP controversy - and perhaps as CML states that would be less so if made into a Category. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: perhaps "Category of lawyers who have been disbarred"? Emphasise that lawyers in the list may not be currently disbarred. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep per excellent Psychonaut arguments. It is a very well made list which contains sourced and interesting information, as such it is not redundant with a category. It has also been massively reduced without apparent strong reasons just around the AfD nomination, so please check previous versions to make your mind up. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (albeit too late to make a difference). Honestly, since we have categories called "Disbarred lawyers" and "Disbarred American lawyers", and WP:BLP concerns about negativity don't make sense to me. Disbarment is a matter of public record, and the state bar associations and the state supreme courts make no attempt to hide the fact that an attorney has has had his or her license revoked. In fact, every licensing agency considers it very important that the public be made aware if someone has lost the right to practice. That a person has lost the right to practice law is, plain and simple, a matter of cold hard fact, not a matter of opinion. Should we avoid mention of criminal convictions or license revocations because it's "negative"? I agree that this should be (and so far is) limited to notable attorneys. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We are not a phone book. Or a guide to legal services. Or the Better Business Bureau. What is the encyclopedic use for thbis information, organized as a list? You want to mention that Bill Clinton got disbarred in his article? Fine, if it's sourced. But what use is this list? Other than as a coatrack/attack, that is. As for "WP:BLP concerns about negativity don't make sense to me" <--- that doesn't make sense to me. If you're not concerned about BLP, and the impact unbalanced reporting has on innocent victims, I'm thinking you're confused. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Lar, please WP:AGF. What kind of "coatrack" or "attack" there is in plain information 1)covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, which is BLP policy even if everyone seems to forget it 2)referring also to 18th-century lawyers (see history of the page)? Come on, you can disagree, but you cannot demote every page which sources some negative informaton as a "coatrack/attack". The list -more so in its original state was incredibly informative and of value. It is interesting for sure to know how and why notable lawyers in history have been disbarred. And you are misunderstanding the comment above, I think. One thing is being concerned about BLP in general, another think is to say that there is reason to be concerned here -which seems not the case. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Rule of thumb: whoever first mentions AGF is often the one who isn't assuming it. Not always but that's the way to bet. I have no issue with this: F._Lee_Bailey#Disbarment ... it's well sourced, and it's in the biography of a well known person, and that biography is balanced. But why does it need to be in a list? I don't think we need lists like this. What encyclopedic purpose do they serve that isn't served by the information in the article itself? You're answering with WP:ILIKEIT based reasons, which just don't fly. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm wondering whether you believe that the two categories should be deleted. "I don't think we need lists like this" may mean the opposite of WP:ILIKEIT, or it may mean that putting that type of label on an attorney's article may be unnecessarily harsh, and that it shouldn't be a category label or something mentioned on a list. I can understand if it's the latter; some would say that the loss of a career doesn't need to be compounded with a scarlet letter (for instance, I don't think we have a category called Category: Adulterers (<--that's 18 scarlet letters). Mandsford (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Categories are not lists, per se. But I'm not seeing the encyclopedic need for the category either... perhaps a CfD is in order once this matter is resolved as a delete. ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Ahah, so we can't ask for AGF because it means violating AGF? Funny. It was you tossing accusations of the article being an "attack" or "coatrack" without justification, and this looked like a bit of an attack on editors that sincerely created the article. But this is not very important. Let's come back to the matter: It's not a matter of ILIKEIT, it's more matter of answering the most classic of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments: "what is the encyclopedic use of X"? The answer is, all these arguments are POV almost by definition. But there's a way out of this POV: on WP have WP:GNG, which is all what we need to define "enciclopedicity". It is notable/it is sourced/is consistent with policies? If yes, it should stay. That's it -and WP:WELLKNOWN in fact acknowledges that. Within that, one must accept that what is not encyclopedic for you can be for someone else (and v/v). You "don't think we need lists like this". I think different -and so do, to my humble judgement, our guidelines and policies. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Your judgment is, in my judgment, not correct. This list, by definition, is unbalanced, it doesn't include lawyers who were incorrectly disbarred, for example. Disbarment is fine in an individual article, where it can be presented in context. But in a list, it's a coatrack. GNG isn't the applicable policy, BLP is. BLP requires balance. Which is lacking. Answer Lara's question. ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Lara's question about encyclopedicity, I've answered above: it's a misleading and POV-loaded question, because you answer using policies and guidelines, no more no less, you don't have to ask yourself anything else. Now: if it is unbalanced (and surely it can be) it means that you have to improve the article, not delete it, because deletion is not article cleanup. If someone has been incorrectly disbarred, it has obviously to be loudly and clearly included in the list entry (one could make a separate section for such cases). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Psychonaut. It is not an incomplete listing of every disbarred lawyer, but a list only of notable ones. It is reasonable to ask for a ref for each in the article. They are either disbarred or not, and that is public record. (It is not like it was a "List of ambulance chasing lawyers" or "List of overweight lawyers.") If they got reinstated, that can be noted. or the name could be removed. We are not restricted to either category or list. There is no reason it could not be moved to List of disbarred U.S. lawyers. Different countries may have various terms and customs, and penalties which are not quite the same as disbarment in the U.S. Numerous names of extremely notable ones which were removed, such as former Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon should be restored to the present shrunken list. It is pretty easy to find a source for people like Nixon [1] or Agnew [2], [3]. For long-deceased persons, placing a "fact " tag requesting a cite is better practice than deleting the unreferenced text as NonvocalScream did in this edit [4] How are Nixon (died 1994) and Agnew (died 1996) "recently deceased" as the edit summary claims? Deletions such as those make the list look far less encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question What is the encyclopedic value of such a list? These disbarments are allegedly discussed in the articles, so why then do we need a list dedicated to listing these cases? What purpose does this serve that isn't accomplished with the categories? Lara 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• A category doesn't say why each element in the category has been disbarred, and doesn't give sources: a category therefore cannot be used as a quick reference about disbarring cases, but requires to check each article one by one. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Also: check WP:AOAL (and WP:DOAL, of course) to have quick pros and cons. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that we are cherry-picking a single event out of a life, and promoting it beyond where we would be allowed to if it were within a biography. Kevin (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? It is not within a biography. It is a list focused on that unfortunate aspect of their life, but it's not like we're saying this is the only interesting aspect of their life. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies equally to articles containing biographical material as to biographies themselves, so we have to honor the policy in this article as well. The top of that policy state the we must strictly adhere to maintaining a neutral point of view, which is not possible with such a narrowly focussed list. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Major changes were made to the article beginning at 22:35, 14 October 2009, in order to remove unsourced entries and to add sources for the remaining ones.
• Keep. I generally agree with Psychonaut. Since general notability is assumed for membership on a list, we're not obliged to compile a list of non-notable lawyers who were disbarred. Lists and categories are complementary, so the argument that "this should just be a category" holds little weight. And, as noted by several above, to the extent that it's claimed that there are BLP issues with such a list, categories pose larger problems: lists are articles with references, categories are generated by tags. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Kevin. There is no problem with adding in an article suitable, referenced material relating to (in this case) disbarment. Adding it to a list in these circumstances is double dipping into the biography of the individual and painting them twice with the same brush - unfair, unnecessary, unwarranted and not encyclopaedic. Arguing for the lists inclusion based on this or that policy should only occur if we keep our eyes on the main question/prize - "Is this list of encyclopaedic value?" The answer must in my view be NO as it is a list that adds no more to the pedia and in effect limits the professionalism of the project.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. What is "encyclopaedic"/"unencyclopaedic" is your POV. If a list is informative, gives more informations than a category and it is not a mere trivial intersection, it can be of use to someone, and we shouldn't bar this someone to get this information collected and sourced in one place only because you don't like it. About the "professionalism" of this project, well, this is again matter of points of view. But given that fortunately we're not made of paper, this professionalism is in my opinion given also by the ingenuity and vastity of our coverage. Avoiding intentionally to present information in a compact, useful, referenceable way is not what I'd call professional. My point of view of course. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cyclopia - I wonder if you could please tone down your unfounded insinuations - and your apparent need to batter every opinion that does not concur with yours. My point of view comment above is hardly an "I don't like it" argument and for you to say so does not assist. I have given (as you have) an informed opinion in relation to where this encyclopedia should continue to be heading - thus your comment where you appear to manipulate my view into being a slight against mine is not appropriate. Put another way I am sure you would not appreciate my categorisation of your efforts as being I just like it comments. If you could remove the bit you have made up inclusive of the words ... only because you don't like it I would be most appreciative.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Virtual Steve. I am sorry if you found my comment heating. I however stand by its substance, even if maybe wording was a bit harsh -and I apologize for that. You basically said that the list "is not of encyclopedic value" and it "adds no more to the pedia". You didn't explain why, and "encyclopedic value" is a vague term which has no true definition. That's why it amounts -at least to my impression- to "not liking it" , at least until you explain the rationale your position. No insinuation therefore. The fact is: covering notable information and creating informative, non-trivial, non-directory-like lists is allowed by WP:GNG, WP:LIST, WP:NOT and other guidelines/policies; saying that you find something "not encyclopedic" instead has no grounds in policies and guidelines (unless you provide evidence or at least arguments of the contrary)

You're more than entitled to call my second argument on your professionalism comment "ILIKEIT" instead - in fact I started with: "this is again matter of point of view" and ended "My point of view of course" -both of our arguments should be of little use for the AfD.

I hope to have been more clear. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cyclopia - You say I didn't explain why I object to the keeping of this list, however it appears you have by accident or deliberately missed my detailed comment - made in the first part of this thread - I underline it for ease of vision There is no problem with adding in an article suitable, referenced material relating to (in this case) disbarment. Adding it to a list in these circumstances is double dipping into the biography of the individual and painting them twice with the same brush - unfair, unnecessary, unwarranted and not encyclopaedic.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, wait: I said you didn't explain why it was not encyclopedic and unprofessional -and all my discussion was about that (I happen to think that the "unencyclopedic!" card should be either sourced in policies/guidelines or absolutely avoided). I was perfectly aware you brought also another argument, and this, even if I disagree (see my comments to Kevin), was absolutely fine. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note - I have restored the state of the list as of the time of the AFD. Most of the list had been removed because it was not sourced, but the removed material is all easily sourceable, as far as I could determine - just go to the subject articles, and the sources are there. And BLP doesn't apply to many of the removed entries, as the subjects were long dead. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note (to all readers, not just Brianyoumans) - ANY material that is not sourced, whether positive or negative, about a living, or recently deceased person, is subject to removal under BLP, and removal of it is not subject to 3RR restrictions. Have you, Brian, reviewed what you restored before doing so, to make sure that you were not restoring any unsourced material about living or recently deceased persons? Those who say BLP applies only to biographical articles are sorely confused. This list is subject to BLP policy, and if you think differently you are playiing with fire. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I now sourced (or removed if I couldn't quickly find sources) all living people cited in the list. A few long-dead fellows remain to be sourced. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Cyclopia: I happen to think your overall approach to BLP as well as your view on this specific matter is perhaps the most incorrect of any participant in this discussion so far. However I must give you full props for going in and putting sources in on all the living folk in the list (or removing those you could not find). While I remain (strongly!!!) convinced the list needs to go away, if more people responded that way to BLP concerns, by trying their best as they see matters to fix the problems, instead of saying "well, sources are out there, someone COULD add some if they wanted to", we'd have far less problematic BLPs. So thanks for that work. Sincerely. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks to you Lar: It really makes me feel good that, despite our differences, we can respect each other. My point of view on your BLP approach is, well, reciprocal :) -but indeed I cannot disagree on the fact that such information ,if unsourced, can be problematic. I hope this helps to understand each other better, without being mistaken anymore for a creature the Scandinavian folktales ;) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I'd like to offer a little apology for blithely reinstituting the old version; I obviously didn't do enough checking before I did so. In my defense, I can say that Cyclopia was able to source a majority of the entries, and the remainder were largely cases where the lawyer had been suspended but not disbarred (Maddox, Kalmbach), or where there seems to be a widely-held assumption of disbarment, but no good source to say so (Liddy, Hall). I have also seen many articles deleted because they have been gutted, and no longer merit keeping. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • [EC] Yes - absolutely correct and I note that several of the names on the list (given the article status of the page at this time) are not sourced in any way. Indeed - for those promoting the value of this list - at least one on the list is not only unsourced but it is also a red-link - in effect the list is asking us to believe without any reference or even an article that George Lockhart was disbarred for disrespect to the court of session in advising an appeal to Parliament.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • That guy apparently is dead since more than a century. I will delete it or source it, but well, not a BLP problem probably. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Again Cyclopia - I did not say George was a BLP problem. Please?--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Again: I didn't say you said it. I was just making things clear for people reading the discussion :) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Anyway, now I found the article (the wikilink was wrong) and sourced it (source weak, but it's a BDP, we have time to do better). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - BLP issues. IF the information is in the persons article, it would be better handled by a Catagory in this case. and Yes I know lists and Cats can live together, but grouping by Cat would solve any BLP issues. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you: A category without sources and explanations, which just lists people as disbarred is better, from the BLP point of view, of a list which is sourced, explains why and how the subject has been disbarred, and if he/she's been reinstated or if disbarment was wrong? I don't understand how can this make sense. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Citations and Reasons for their disbarment (and possible reinstatement) would be explained, in its entirety, in a Article. Whereas, this list would not have any of that information. The information you believe would stay in this list, I believe would be trimmed out as not being 'relevant'. Why should a list of disbarred lawyers list those that had been reinstated? That would be a completely different list, no? The Cat is the simplest way to group them all together, and still have the Whole story, not just a single cherrypicked event, giving to much weight, that would (eventually) explain nothing. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Psychonaut says why. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning delete No real explanation for the categorization save some misconduct (alleged or confirmed) on the part of the subject. Very likely that subjects on the list will be notable largely by virtue of their disbarment (or by virtue of their conduct). Can't really see navigational value in it. If it were a regular list, this wouldn't necessarily be a compelling bunch of reasons to delete, but BLP concerns push me over. Protonk (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you which BLP concerns? Everything is sourced now, and there is a lot more value in it than a list -there are reasons of disbarment, if reinstated is notified, it is even sortable, etc. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I think selection generates the BLP problem. We have a list that's organized only by black marks on individuals (both non-public figures and public figures). What Lara (I think) is saying above is that our natural (on wikipedia) tendency to sort and present information comes into direct conflict with the fact that such an association and presentation is inherently biased. That an encyclopedic association and presentation would be dictated by features which aren't predominantly negative or if they are has some overriding reason to exist (e.g. List of dictators (though that has faced AfDs in the past and I'm not sure of the opinions of others there). In other words we have the informational capacity to source this list and collate these datapoints but we have a duty to refuse to do so. That's the BLP problem. Remember that sourcing is necessary for BLPs, not sufficient. I don't have this page watchlisted so if you want further elaboration or you want to contest a point just hit me up on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and that is the core of what I find profoundly dangerous with in the way many editors understand BLP. A presentation of mere sourced facts -without weasel words, without concealing relevant information etc., in summary, a NPOV-as possible presentation of mere facts is not biased by definition and I cannot understand how can the contrary hold. Neutrally presented facts are neutrally presented facts: no more, no less. It's not like this is "List of evil lawyers" or "List of well-deserved disbarments". It's just "List of disbarred lawyers": you can't get much more robotic than that. How can this be considered "biased" really escapes my understanding. You say "we have a duty to refuse to do so": I'd say we have a duty to NOT refuse to do so. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's fair and I share your concern, but please try to visualize this as a continuum of opinions. There are editors who view BLP problems (broadly defined) as a black and white decision rule vis a vis deletion. There are other editors who view BLP problems as some component of deletion reasoning or as part of a weighting scheme. The point I'm making broadly is that we have the capacity to display this information but we have no requirement. You note that the list itself is NPOV. If we fail to agree on that starting point I can imagine how arguing over the later particulars would be unhelpful. So I'll try to offer some reasoning (beyond what I said already) why the list might not be NPOV. The act of inclusion onto a list is one of commission. Prior to the existence of this list articles contained information about the disbarment in proportion to its significance to the subject. After the creation of this list we have a collection of names linked by a common (usually negative) event. You note that the event itself is not inherently 'bad', but it is usually shameful and/or not positive. We could make the same article for List of adulterous politicians. The event itself shouldn't be expunged from wikipedia, but our architectural and social tendencies (on wikipedia) create a lean toward collecting the individual events and presenting them in a fashion like this results in a non-neutral presentation. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice and informative answer. I understand the event is not positive, but since it is sourced and real, I again do not understand why should we obfuscate a list of it, forcing people who want to know about the subject in general to search and go through articles one by one. It seems that the concern here is making it as difficult as possible for people to find a summary of neutral, objective, real information. This sounds to me 1)overzealous, 2)a disservice to the readers 3)a violation of spirit, if not of letter, of WP:WELLKNOWN, which is unfortunately the Cinderella of BLP policy. I also don't understand what does it mean that "we have no requirement": technically, is there any article which is "required"? But once an article exists, we should judge as objectively as possible if it is the case of sending it to oblivion. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the basic points here is that if people want to obtain accurate, up-to-date and reliable information on the status of a lawyer, they should check with the State Bar Association or the Bar Council if they're in the UK. The problem with this list is that if it falls out of date and inaccurate information regarding the status of a lawyer is propagated, there'll be hell to pay. Especially if it causes potential damage to a lawyer's business and our list is suddenly out of step with the Bar Association's opinion. I'm guessing you're not going to put your real, legal identity to this list, nor watch it like a hawk? Imagine the ramifications of posting something in here and having it enter the Google cache at the wrong moment? Not good ... - Alison ^❤ 09:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So you say we basically delete articles because of fear? Textbook case of chilling effect! However at least this is a practical and meaningful argument, even if truly sad and worrying. I wonder if an explicit disclaimer can help in this case. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a chilling effect at all. I'm talking about being responsible, being accurate and being accountable. Without accountability, there's little concern for pseudonymous people to 'get it right'. With the Bar Association, they have a legal obligation to. I think your point re. a disclaimer is actually a good one & probably something we should consider - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand. Allison is saying that we have competing obligations. The first obligation is to the subjects of articles, BLPs obviously being very important, but not the only subject to which we have some debt. The second is to the encyclopedia--in other words we are all here presumably because we feel some social good comes from the collection and presentation of information. We need to weigh those two obligations against each other. Obviously some editors will assign a priority to one of those two obligations, resulting in a distribution of good faith responses. But I don't feel it is a chilling effect or otherwise unwise to assign a high value to our obligation to subjects and (relatively) a low value to our obligation to the encylopedia. In this case our obligation to the encyclopedia suggests that we should have the information in here (in other words I presume that the info is verifiable and given due weight in specific articles) in some form. We want (because we feel that we are better off for having the list) to collect the information and present it in list-form, but here our obligation to the subjects may intervene. We now have an article which will appear in searches for "disbarred lawyer" and we have to 1. ensure its accuracy and 2. ensure its neutrality. Accomplishing 1 may be within our grasp regardless, though the duplication of the info on the list multiplies our obligations (obviously Allison can disagree with me here). Accomplishing 2 is the rub (for me). Absent some overriding encyclopedic obligation and with an inherent neutrality problem, I argue that our obligation to the subjects outwieghs our obligation to present this data in list form (though only weakly). Protonk (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Mercurywoodrose. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Disbarred Lawyers: Arbitrary Break 1

• Comment If I knew how to put in one of those boxes for "arbitrary break", I would do so. I do want to point out that after this discussion began, Cyclopia addressed the task of adding sources to fix the WP:OR concerns. What I see remaining is that some people think that there should be a category, but not a list; and others think that mention of the fact of disbarment in a category or a list would create a WP:BLP issue. I hope that the closing admin will take into account that substantial improvements were made in response to some of the initial objections. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you did put in an arbitrary break. :) To my way of thinking with a BLP, if it's not sourced and can't be sourced, that's pretty much open and shut stub down to nothing or delete. Unsourced BLPs cannot be allowed to remain. So that was the first hurdle, regardless of anything else. That's now been cleared, C went through and removed unsourceable, and sourced the rest. I take it on faith he did a good job and used reliable sources. The next hurdle is whether, even when it's sourced, is it a coatrack and likely to remain such. That's where I think we are. And I see that as insurmountable, regardless of improvements. The very nature of a list such as this is that it cannot be balanced. As Guy explains just below. Finally, we don't need the list itself anyway. The information is available in the individual articles (or should be) or in the Disbarment article (or should be)... and putting it there solves the balance problem, which cannot be solved in this list unless it's turned into something else. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you elaborate on the balance problem? Many people are bringing this argument but I have a hard time understanding what you mean. As I understand balance, it has to be in a BLP, and I agree (there is the issue of what is notable the person for, but let's put it aside). But outside proper biographies, considering "balance" as you do is problematic: it makes coverage of many facts impossible. Let's take an article about the current Polanski issue. It is not inconceivable to have an article about the Polanski case (in fact I think there is or was). The article of course won't deal with all Polanski biography, but it will deal with only the relevant fact, good or bad it is. Is this unbalanced? In a certain sense yes, it only deals with a specific (and negative) aspect of his biography. But I'd also say no, because 1)there's a full article on Polanski, and that's where balance should be and 2)it is explicit that the article topic is selective and as such it is explicit this is not necessarily the only thing Polanski is known for. And that's the way it should be: otherwise it means that all facets of a person biography cannot, by definition, be covered by separate articles because they would be "unbalanced". To me it makes little sense. In this case: here we're listing disbarred lawyers and the rationale of their disbarment. The relevant BLPs are only one click link away, if one wants the big picture. The listing is just for the sake of convenience -the same person could appear also in the "List of 100 top charity donors of all times", but I bet no one here would call this "unbalanced". I don't know if I have been clear, but I hope to have conveyed what is my concern. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Suppose I put together a List of people with warts on their noses, and suppose it was impeccably sourced and only notable people are on it. That list is inherently unbalanced. Do you see why? (for the record List of 100 top charity donors of all time is unbalanced as well, although we are more concerned with negative things, and I'd consider it as deletable as well.) ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No: I really, sincerely, objectively can't see why the list of people with warts on their noses is "inherently unbalanced" (my only concern is that it would be a bit trivial), and I am even more disconcerted by the fact you feel that you would consider the list of charity donors questionable. I am asking you to explain, because I really cannot understand even remotely what is wrong with these examples. Please explain what is the reasoning behind your judgement, because I cannot grasp it by myself. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The main problem here is that anybody who is added to the list is automatically being compared with everyone else on the list, which includes some pretty unsavoury characters. Disbarment can be the result of technical breaches or egregious misbehaviour, so this is equivalent to a "list of criminals" which includes petty thieves alongside mass murderers. The small size of the list makes this more likely to happen. In the prose article on disbarment, a discussion of notable examples with cited content showing why they are notable, is quite acceptable, but lumping together all those who happen to have been disbarred for whatever reason seems to me to be a significant WP:BLP problem just because the event is uncommon and there is little homogeneity between the individuals concerned. The clincher is that it includes people disbarred through automatic process due to heinous crimes alongside people whose disbarment was the result of professional misconduct hearings. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the reasons for disbarment are given, people can see for themselves whether the action was taken from misbehavior in the practice of law, or (I believe this is what you're referring to as technical breach or automatic process) conviction of a felony, whether it's related to the practice of law or not. Regardless, no attorney is ever disbarred without due process. Honestly, I'm wondering how many of the editors are attorneys or have relatives who are, since this seems to be an unusually sensitive topic. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I think this makes an interesting list. I don't think it is necessarily a disgrace to be on this list; it depends on the reason for disbarment. The list is limited to notable figures who already have articles, which I think is essential. For most of the modern cases, the fact of disbarment is really a minor part of their disgrace - most of them served jail terms for some sort of criminal activity. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep rename to List of disbarments. A list of notable disbarments complies with our guidelines and policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

hmm, with this name change taking the focus off the individuals and onto the disbarments, it would to my eyes no longer be a toxic article. if the content stayed rigorously sourced and npov, and watched like a hawk, this name change may just work. Im not sold on keeping, but i cant advocate delete any more now that this possibility has been mentioned.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the name doesn't change anything. Lara 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion and there is nothing wrong IMHO in doing that during the AfD, but unfortunately the name is already a redirect to the current article. CoM, can you or some other admin take care of swapping? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment articles can have multiple categories, sometimes contradictory. when you have a list, it tends to make the item on the list seem to be primarily notable for the subject of that list. so i think cat is better than list in this case.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning delete, although I just added another person (a dead person) to the list (probably a perverse act on my part). As a general principle, I think that any list that associates people with a negative attribute requires stronger justification than a list that associates people with an attribute that is positive or merely neutral. Largely because there are myriad reasons why the lawyers on this list were disbarred (ranging from disrespectful behavior to murder and treason), I don't see any significant commonality among the list entries, which makes it hard for me to see strong justification for this list. Also, given that most people are not eligible for disbarment because most people aren't lawyers, it seems like the existence of this list focuses a certain amount of negative attention on the entire legal profession. (I am not aware of any similar lists of doctors or dentists who lost their medical licenses, university faculty who were stripped of academic tenure, or even politicians who were removed from office.)
  If the article is retained, I think the table should be revised so that no lawyer is listed more than once (if a lawyer had multiple disbarments, all should be reported in the same row of the table). Also, I don't think the disbarment and reinstatement dates should be linked. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought of another relevant professional parallel. There is no list of defrocked Roman Catholic priests, although there is a category for them. There is, however, a List of convicted religious leaders. A list of Roman Catholic priests who have been defrocked would represent the same kind of shared happenstance as the list of disbarred lawyers: (1) being a member of a profession that exiles people who don't conform with its professional rules, and (2) somehow running afoul of those professional rules (possibly a serious violation or possibly something that the rest of the world would consider inconsequential). I see this type of "shared happenstance" as inherently different from (and less suitable for being highlighted in a list than) the shared condition of having been convicted of a crime.
Lest my arguments be dismissed as an evocation of WP:OTHERSTUFF, let me say that I looked for these other lists because there is something about the list of disbarred lawyers that gives me a queasy feeling, and I was looking for parallels to help me understand and define what it is that bothers me about the list of disbarred lawyers. I'm not necessarily convinced that List of convicted religious leaders deserves to be in Wikipedia. However, my queasiness about the idea of List of laicized Roman Catholic priests -- and the perception that it is different from the list of convicted religious leaders -- helps me understand why I don't like the idea of the disbarred lawyers list. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy, above, and per BLP issues that are inevitable. Viridae^Talk 05:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. D_mn'd useful, but utterly inappropriate to Wikipedia. Put it on a Website where it belongs. —SlamDiego_←T 07:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I cite from WP:USEFUL: There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." - As such, I'd like you to elaborate on why it is "utterly inappropriate" on WP. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed that Wikipedia articles should be useless. (Did you really need to belabor the point that uselessness is not necessary?) The problem is that usefulness in some general sense is not sufficient, but that's all that I see this article possessing. What is the use of the list to the reader qua consumer of an encyclopædia? A list is literally a relationship amongst its items. While the persons on this particular list are themselves “notable”, are there in fact notable relationships here amongst them? —SlamDiego_←T 09:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand very well your comment because I never talked about uselessness (??). I wanted to point that lists exist mostly because of their usefulness in navigating and collecting information. The notable relationship is: they are all notable lawyers which have been disbarred in public cases, obviously. I don't understand why you're asking -it's the title of the article. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The straw-man that you fought was logically equivalent to the claim that articles should be useless. Your answer to my question about “notability” is quite inadequate. Being “notable” doesn't confer “notability” upon all of one's relationships, nor upon all of one's relationships with other things that are themselves “notable”. The fact that these persons are “notable” doesn't automatically make each relationship amongst them “notable”; the fact that their disbarments were “notable” (if, indeed, they were) doesn't make each relationship amongst the disbarments “notable”. What makes the relationship of this list “notable”? —SlamDiego_←T 16:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The straw-man that you fought was logically equivalent to the claim that articles should be useless. - This is plain nonsense, sorry. I was considering quite the opposite. It seems we just cannot understand each other. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not plain nonsense. You were arguing the opposite of a straw-man. And it seems that you cannot answer my question. But it's plain from your talk of “obfuscation” below that you are amongst those who see the function of this list as to out disbarred lawyers. Again, that might be quite useful, but Wikipedia is not the place for such use. The relationship that this list represents is not “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 05:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely have a hard time following your reasonings -it seems you're misunderstanding all my reasonings. My fault probably, but really what you say has no relationship with what I am trying to say. For example, no, I do not see at all the function of this list to out disbarred lawyers. I talk of obfuscation because if I need to search all instances of X, I find it useful to have a list of all insteances of X with proper sources and informaton, instead of having to look each instance one by one. As for the question: I cannot answer your question because I don't get the meaning of what question you're asking me. I try to get it re-asking it to you: We have a List of novelists from the United States: what makes the relationship between them notable? Is this what you're asking me? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm having any trouble following your reasoning, and I don't really need for you to follow mine, so long as other editors can follow it. As far as obfuscation is concerned, the word “obfuscate” refers to active concealment or confusion, not to simple failure to highlight something. And, no, I'm not asking you what makes the relationship amongst American novelists notable; I'm asking you what makes the relationship amongst these disbarred lawyers notable, and you're just not answering. If someone want to challenge “List of novelists from the United States” in an appropriate forum, that's fine. If someone want to use “What about article x?” in a AfD, that's not so fine. —SlamDiego_←T 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you delete the article, you "actively conceal" its information, so yes, it is obfuscation. And I am not answering your question, again, because your question doesn't make sense to me, like if you were asking me "what colour is gravity": I brought the example not because I want to make a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but because I want to understand what kind of question is yours. So please tell me what is a "notable relationship" in the context of a WP list, and I can discuss about that, because AFAIK WP lists surely should avoid trivial intersections, but being a lawyer and being disbarred seems not trivial at all -it's not like a "List of blonde lawyers". Finally, yes, if you assume that I think that the function of the list is to "out disbarred lawyers", you have serious trouble following my reasoning. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope; you're deliberately confusing commission with omission. The list doesn't have a prior claim on existence. (Any circular response to this point will be duly identified as such.) Not continuing to carry it would be not continuing to highlight. Claiming that we be obfuscating be deleting it is like claiming that one has blocked a discovered ant by shaking it from one's clothing.

The criteria for “notability” don't fundamentally change when we are talking about relationships. Do a significant share of “reliable” sources discuss the relationship amongst disbarments that is captured by this list? If not, then this relationship is not “notable”.

In some sense, as I suppose, the inability to see reason in unreason could be said to be trouble. —SlamDiego_←T 14:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a "prior claim on existence"? The list exists and it organizes information in a meaningful way, it is not a trivial intersection and it is not agains anything in WP:OC, WP:LIST and related guidelines on categorization. That's its claim on existence. There is no need of a "notable relationship" between disbarments (whatever it is, since you fail to explain it) unless you cite me an explicit policy on that (before you rush: no, WP:GNG is not -a list is a navigational and organization aid for subjects which are under the GNG -and the subjects, the concept of disbarment and its relationship with lawyer follow GNG); all what we need is that disbarments are notable and sourced -and the intersection between "lawyer" and "disbarment" is for sure not trivial. So, either you have something in WP:OC,WP:LIST or similar that is relevant, or no need to argue. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The list would have a prior claim on existence if if came into being as an expression of Wikipedia's actual mission and policies; which it didn't. You are now consciously ignoring the point that I made clearly some iterations ago: "Being “notable” doesn't confer “notability” upon all of one's relationships, nor upon all of one's relationships with other things that are themselves “notable”. The fact that these persons are “notable” doesn't automatically make each relationship amongst them “notable”; the fact that their disbarments were “notable” (if, indeed, they were) doesn't make each relationship amongst the disbarments “notable”." You've offered no evidence that the relationship of this list itself meets Wikipedia's criteria for “notability”. It isn't up to the rest of us to show that the relationship is not itself notable. And, evidently, you cannot “put up”. —SlamDiego_←T 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[OD] Sorry Cyclopia - but your statement If you delete the article, you "actively conceal" its information is again more nonsense. The articles that relate to this list contain the full information. This has been explained before to you (look a little further down from this post) and you simply refuse to understand the fact of this point. I wonder if you could possibly at least try to stop adding content just for the sake of raising argument? --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're confounding "concealment" with "destruction". I know that technically information is not lost if the list is deleted, but it becomes much harder for one to have all this information in a single place convenient. I will play the dreaded enciclopedicity card for once: That's basically the sense of an encyclopedia. If tomorrow WP is destroyed, one could argue that nothing has been lost: after all, all meaningful information herein is already somewhere else. However anyone understands that something would have been indeed lost, and that is, having information conveniently collected in one place instead of being scattered here and there. Same, in small, for the list here.

(And yes, I try: but if people keep misunderstanding what I mean I can't let it go). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah interesting - it seems your idea of concealment is far harsher than mine; and of course the ultimate reverse side of the coin (albeit exaggerated to extend your point) you just tossed is that we should never delete anything for fear of concealing some "knowledge"? Sorry I won't buy your reason for keeping on the basis of concealment actively harming anthing at this encyclopedia in this current case. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Why do we have Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and so many other bad outcomes? It is because that is where the knowledge is. Why do we have seat belts and padded dashboards in every one of our cars? It is because we learned. We are (or least, we were) here to share the sum total of human knowledge. And yet, when it comes to living lawyers, we look away; nay, we quake with fear about the money. How is *that* NPOV? Do I invoke Dick the butcher of wikiquote:Henry VI, Part 2#Act IV scene 2, 71–78 ? No; non-violence! I say: let us drive to oblivion all of these disbarred lawyers (and their allied wiki-lawyers) with words. To paraphrase the fictional Peter Clemenza and to serve the incompetants their just deserts: "Leave the words, take the cannoli."--Livingrm (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  What? Do note that no actual information is being removed from the encyclopedia if this gets deleted. All information in this list is included in individual biographies. The sum of all human knowledge and the sharing thereof will be unaffected. Lara 11:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, but navigation and convenient indexing matters as well. It is an easy-of-use thing. Inconvenient knowledge (that word, "inconvenient"!) It is as in An Inconvenient Truth or that use of the word inconvenient in the play A Man for All Seasons, as uttered by the title character to Richard Rich (in reference to the divorce the monarch contemplates): "T: And our job as administrators... R:...is to minimise the inconvenience which this is going to cause. T: That's our only job, Rich, to minimise the inconvenience of things." In terms of knowledge, we wish to fulfill that promise of that otherwise loathsome creature Huey Long and make "Every Man a King". Treat these present-day lawyers and barristers as fellow citizens and nothing more. To paraphrase David Farragut, Damn the legal torpedos and full speed ahead. I promise you: 20 years from now, attempting to obscure such information will be but a quaint exercise of a past age, and the next generation will wonder what the fuss was all about and how we could have survived without convenient access to such information. The Age of obscurity is passing and once we cross those boarders, we can never return again. To paraphrase Lennon and Yoko Ono: "Obscurity is over, if you want it". I go on like this to emphasize that these are age-old problems in merely a newfangled world.--Livingrm (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Right... well, this is still an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lara 12:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. The problem is exactly that it becomes much more indiscriminate if information is left obfuscated between several articles instead of being (also) conveniently summarized and structured in a separate list too, for ease of use and navigation. A list like this is the proper opposite of "indiscriminate". Thank you for helping my point. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second there. No. Your saying that a list is more useful that a Cat, and that is just not true. Your "obfuscated" argument is a red herring. You may prefer a list, but others navigate via Cat's. Especially whan Cats can be further sub-Catted refining a search even further for information. Whereas a list cannot be, it is just a list. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto per Exit. To reiterate, Lists (and especially this one because it is SO prone to UNDUE, NPOV and BLP concerns) are more problematic and far less helpful than Cats.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 01:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cats contain no references, no explanation, nothing. It is just a label smacked on the subject. The list contains references, explanation and, if the subject has been readmitted as laywer, includes this. And you think a cat has less UNDUE and BLP concerns than a list? Please. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a little tiresome Cyclopia. I hope you will agree that the articles contain the references and the facts, disbarring readmission etc - and it is the articles that (for you) create a need for this list - the list does nothing but repeat (unneccessarily in my view and many others here) the facts relating to disbarrment etc. Indeed because the list is just a repitituous promulgation of these one or two facts; it therefore, for obvious reasons, raises the spectre of problems relating to UNDUE and at times BLP. Now I understand and I can see that you have a love for arguing constantly, and I also note where above (in answer to Lar's comment) you say that you sincerely do not understand how inherently unbalanced this list is; and I appreciate that you personally can't understand the reasoning presented by Lar and many others here, but honestly there are many of us that can understand that reasoning, and that immediately do understand the problems that this list poses. Towards that same understanding many of us also immediately see the differences between a category and a list. That does not mean that you are not entitled to your view - and you have put it numerous times above - and no doubt will put it again below but please at least try and understand that there is a marked difference between a list and a category in this case.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

but honestly there are many of us that can understand that reasoning: Therefore you could explain it.

but please at least try and understand that there is a marked difference between a list and a category in this case.: I understand that, but to my judgement it is the opposite -a category contains much less informaton, and as such seems to me much more problematic than a referenced list. Again, I've seen no attempt to explain to me the opposite. I am sincerely interested in understanding that because it's bewildering for me, and I would be more than happy to declare I've been wrong if convincing arguments are put on the table. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiresome is an understatement. Categories are added to the articles themselves. Articles are (usually) watched by people who are knowledgeable about them, so when someone who shouldn't be added to the category is, they're typically removed fairly quickly. Lists tend to get little attention as they are often complete messes, much like this one. Riddled with unreferenced and/or inapplicable entries, poorly formatted, poorly written, and completely lacking any sort of encyclopedic value, coatrack; those are frequently issues found in lists. Categories take out a lot of the problems inherent with lists. Lara 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Cyclopia - Lara's answer supplied overnight (my time) nicely sums up much what I would have said, and/or reiterated on my own behalf and on the behalf of others who have attempted to explain to you what our view of the problems with this article are.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To the risk of being unbearably tiresome: I understand Lara's objection, because she sees a category as a single label which shows below the article. In this context, I understand the category appears much less problematic. Problem is, if I click the cat, I find this page: Category:Disbarred_American_lawyers. Now, (leaving aside the well known fact that lists and cats are not mutually exclusive): is that page -without refs, without a reason for disbarment, without mentioning if they have been readmitted to the profession, with only automatically compiled bare names- better or worse of a list, and why? Because if you wanted to delete the cat, I'd disagree as well, but at least I'd find the arguments consistent. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Category simply provides a link to the article of the disbarred lawyer in question - where the full knowledge provided (to date) regarding the subject is available - thus no UNDUE. Categories are not articles and do not read as such. The list provides a link to the article in question also but it emphasises negative titbits such as No contest plea to bribery and tax evasion; Convicted of murder; Convicted for stealing money from Holocaust survivors about subjects (sometimes living) - thus UNDUE emphasis. Lists often (and especially this one) read as articles. This list dumbs the subject matter down to a single incident (in this case negative) about the subject and causes readers to walk away with what they believe to be the most pertinent fact of the subject's life. A category benefits neutrality because it in effect forces, or at the very least is likely to force the reader to enter the article to find out more about the subject - exactly because (as you say above) it provides no information. The reader who is interested even if it is in relation to the subject matters disbarment if that is their only interest, will at the same time be offered the full scope and thus overall neutrality of the article. Now I can almost read your next objection before you write it - which will be along the lines of this list also gives a link to the main article; although for the reasons I have just described - and I will reiterate early in this case, the category, provides the best possibility of the reader gaining a balanced view. This list does not provide the same opportunity for balance.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your prediction skills are only half-good: My main objection is about this: causes readers to walk away with what they believe to be the most pertinent fact of the subject's life. -Either you take all readers as clueless robots, or why should they believe this is the most pertinent fact of the subject life? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per Nominator BLP is a big concern here. It would now seem that the earliest unreferenced entry is for 1874(ish). The concerns are/have/should be addressed by finding references or deleting individual entries - not the whole article. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the common BLP concern here is not about sourcing, but that the presentation of a single fact from a person's life fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That same criticism could be levelled at the FA List of Governors of Alaska. It is not NPOV if postives are promoted and negatives are deleted. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We have to make this clear: If the reasoning of Kevin, Lar et al. passes, it means that ALL lists containing living people as members are to be deleted, positive or negative. This is however not included at all in current policies and guidelines, and should be discussed as a policy proposal, not in this AfD. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don;t see that every list of living people is necessarily not neutral. I don't see any problem with the list of Governors noted above, for instance. Kevin (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what you mean. First you say the problem is that the presentation of a single fact from a person's life fails to maintain a neutral point of view and My problem is that we are cherry-picking a single event out of a life, and promoting it beyond where we would be allowed to if it were within a biography. - Point is, every conceivable listing of living subjects does exactly that. If Arnold Schwarzenegger appears in a List of American actors, doesn't this give, in your view, undue weight to the fact that he was an actor when he is also a politician? Or viceversa? Etc. Every listing of people, by definition, categorizes people for a single aspect of their bios. If you think this supposed "cherry picking" is conflicting with UNDUE, it holds for all lists. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that this is a list of one single aspect, indeed a single negative aspect of a persons life - disbarment. The List of American Actors refers to a whole career and a substantial part of an entrants life - hence not UNDUE. Nothing is stopping Arnold being mentioned on the Actors list, nor on a List of Californian Governors. Both of these are not UNDUE, both of them do not emphasise a single (defined as small) negative incident. Please, please read UNDUE - which starts neutrality requires that [each] article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Moving negative parts of a persons life into a list such as this is (as has also been explained above) a COATRACK which is defined as a Wikipedia article [including a list] that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and how do you define "small". Because I don't think being disbarred is a "small" thing for a lawyer. And no, I don't see any coatrack here because what is the "tangentially related biased subject"? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Lar, for instance. Perhaps I am being redundant: BLP issues are a concern here, despite the injunction to allow only well-referenced entries. Such a list cannot be policed 24/7, and its negative character, in the case of vandalism, is just a can of worms, as far as I'm concerned. The list may be well-referenced in its present form, but remember, new additions of recent disbarments are likely to be derived from the paper, and even my local paper can get things wrong. And someone can add my neighbor across the street, with a non-line (can I claim this phrase?) reference, and you'll just have to take it on good faith--also one of our core principles. Such a list, making such claims, would need doubly-strong references, and we have yet to define such a thing. I understand that in historical cases such problems need not arise, but I'd like us to play safe at least every now and then. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — just like we would delete a List of administratively-dismissed academics if it ever were to pop up. Same goes for List of doctors sued for malpractice. In this particular instance, it doesn't matter if it can be sourced—e.g., the former from public school records, the latter from court records—it instead matters what it says about the person without explicitly saying it. A notable member of List of administratively-dismissed academics or List of doctors sued for malpractice is part of a Wiki-BurnBook. I'd argue that List of disbarred lawyers would similarly fit the criteria for a burn book. The rest of what I'd say has already been said by numerous people above pertaining to BLP. -slakr^\ talk / 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I geddit. We dont have List of people told off by their teacher but we do have List of United States senators expelled or censured so it follows that...er no I dont get it. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and we don't do "precedent" here, by and large, instead we re-argue the same questions over and over. Perhaps the senators list needs to go too, not sure, but it's not an argument to be advanced to justify keeping this one, only a note that WP has discrepancies. Which need fixing. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a retort to a WP:NOOTHERSTUFFEXISTS position. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rename per Child.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree it could be (and was) a BLP nightmare. But as it isn't now I don't think the potential for harm is a good reason to delete. And if it does get ugly, I'd prefer full protection to deletion. Is it useful? It is sourced per WP:V etc.? I think so. Is it "encyclopedic?" I think it is a good navigational aid and organizational structure. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Why have an article on Disbarment but then not have a list of any famous prominent disbarrings? I see the article has a list...... but that list could grow too large, and need to be split off... hence this article?. If you are worried about it being 'too negative'.. might as well delete 'lists of nazis' and 'lists of mass murderers' .. 'list of nuclear accidents'.. articles on the bankruptices of 2008/2009... ,list of famous people who were excoummunicated by the church, lists of soviet dissidents, and any other list of anything slightly controversial. Disbarrment is fundmanetal to the legal profession in the USA, if you are going to talk about it, you are going to talk about who its happened to, or in my opinion, you arent really talking about it very well. Now... i will admit the article is a bit of a mess, and needs massive revision, starting with the removal of the table and rewriting with some nice flow and rhythym to the language. but... is that really a reason to delete? Decora (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why yes, it is. Also, you want to remove the table from the article? Wouldn't be much of a list without the table would it? I'm not sure you've thought your opinion through very clearly. ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe Decora is referring to the list in Disbarment. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That list shouldn't exist either. The article is on disbarments, why should there be a section listing US disbarments. Ugh. So we have these people's disbarments discussed three times. So pointless. Lara 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If this list gets kept, I suspect the list in the disbarment article will go and just refer to the list article itself. And is your objection to the listing of only US disbarments or to listing of them at all? It was hard to tell from your comment. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think there should be a list in the article at all, rather a few of those more notable (global) examples written into prose, maybe. I just find it utterly ridiculous that someone found it appropriate to put a US-centric section into the article. Lara 18:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep making it clear that this is a list of those with Wikipedia articles, and perhaps not limiting it to recent, if someone will do the work. The article does need some adjustment of tone--the detailed footnoted on Bailey is out of place. It's different from list of doctors sued for malpractice in two ways--first, the equivalent would be doctors struck of the register (being sued for malpractice is I believe fairly routine), and second because its limited to those who have actually been disbarred, not just accused of offenses. If the person is a public figure enough to have a Wikipedia article, and the disbarment is also widely known, and the documentation is solid, , then it's appropriate and there are no BLP problems. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Is a reasonable list especially since the people contained are people all highly notable individuals. Obviously, we need to only include people who are notable enough to have articles and to make sure that every individual has enough reliable sourcing for the disbarment. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Excise unreferenced names. --Nricardo (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a topic suitable for inclusion within WP, for reasons outlined by many others above me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, a worthwhile list. I went ahead and removed all the unsourced entries. New additions should be verifiable and notable (existing wiki articles on them). Cirt (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep essentially per Psychonaut. Issues have been largely addressed since AfD nom. Per WP:CLN, no need to have only a category instead. Disbarments of notable people are significant events (or more rarely, the disbarment itself is notable), thus it's reasonable to have this sort of list. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2009 (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.