Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (2nd nomination)

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes

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

While this list is well sourced, it violates the neutral point of view policy, and cannot be remedied by editing. When taken in isolation, each entry presents only the information that the individual is a criminal, rather than the balanced view that policy demands. I am also finding it difficult to see an encyclopedic purpose in this article.

This has twice been nominated for deletion in the past, with neither occasion finding a consensus, however I feel that the changing attitudes to BLP issues of late suggest that another debate is appropriate. Kevin (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as long as it remains fully sourced. Of course this list only presents the information that these people are criminals, you click on their name to get their full biographies. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but does a list of best rookies give a balanced view of their careers? Does the (featured) list of F1 fatal accidents give a balanced view that they were generally very good drivers? Of course not, as that is not what qualified them to the list. As professional sportspeople are considered (like it or not) rolemodels and get paid accordingly, then information like this are notable to the general public, and lists like this become very useful in determining the truth - and not perpetuating myths.The-Pope (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disbarred lawyers, this list is unencyclopedic, lends undue weight to one aspect of a person's life; it's basically impossible to maintain a neutral POV. Also, given the nature of the subject, the references would need to be impeccable and everything would need to be extensively referenced - Alison ^❤ 10:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mr Pope, sportspeople will always have criminal records, also Wikipedia is not censorship. Donnie Park (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it has citations for every item in the list, which it does. Could use some help with properly formatting the citations, but that's not relevant to AFD. -Drdisque (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and well defined. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I agree with Kevin and Alison, this is not neutral enough, and would require impeccable referencing for this article to not violate policy. It's not censoring to make sure that our articles follow the BLP policy; it's another list that isn't necessary to be included in the encyclopedia. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A helter-skelter list that throws in everything from perjury to tax evasion to murder. Beyond being professional athletes, these people and their offenses have very little in common. Warrah (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What makes this list notable? Why not a list of all sports players who own 3 or more houses? or perhaps all sports players who drive a Cadillac. Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afd debates are not helped by such obvious fallacies. Since when were these characteristics ever considered comparable? If you just don't think its usefull, say so. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quote my statement from the original AFD - '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 the other intersections you mentioned. CitiCat^♫ 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should be deleting information because it can't be maintained (and this not because of some inherent vagueness in the information - people are either convicted or not, this is either referenced or not, but because people might miss vandalism, or don't have time to verify articles). I don't actually care if it is deleted or kept (beyond being more than pissed at always wasting time creating relevant and usefull categories that get deleted in 5 seconds, see next comment), but for the love of God, if it is kept, then we should resurrect the accompanying Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime, which is uncoinicidentally at deletion review here). As for NPOV, like it or not, being convicted of a crime is a defining quality of a sportsperson, and the comparison and recollection of each case is always of public and media interest (100 and more views a day, even though its currently an orphan.). At the end of the day, if you cannot even find out how many footballers have been jailed for assault, then Wikipedia should not call itself a collection of the entire sum of human knowledge, it will never be anything more than supplemental to better sources. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Needs properly sourced and monitored for any potential BLP violations, but there's nothing with this article that regular attention can't handle.Umbralcorax (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The guidelines at WP:SALAT state that some lists may be unsuitable for inclusion, and goes on to mention the policy WP:NOT. In that policy in the section WP:NOTDIR criterion 6, it states that "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." This concept is further extended to categories, particularly with the guideline WP:OVERCAT in the subsection Trivial Intersection. As sportspeople gaining a criminal conviction does not represent a phenomenon of cultural significance and represents an intersection of two datasets that would otherwise be unrelated, the only logical choice is to delete. Many thanks, Gazimoff 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated datasets? Not culturally significant? Read any sports column after a major sportsperson is convicted of a crime, such as the recent Marlon King case. They almost always compare and contrast prior cases. Christ, in his trial his family was even reported to have screamed 'institutional racism' at the judge, because Steven Gerrard was let off. Other commentary of course mentions the case of Joey Barton. This is hardly a trivial intersection, we are not talking 'sportspeople who wear red shoes' here. You are taking OVERCAT to extremes, and while this might be your personal opinion, and you are most certainly not reflecting reliable sources or the real world. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, as I mentioned the key policy is WP:NOTDIR criterion 6, as I quoted above. To give an example, I could see a list of lawyers, judges or law enforcement individuals with a criminal conviction being valid as they are the intersection of two related datasets, namely those who adminnister the law and those who break it. I could also see a list of sportspeople banned from atheletics for drug taking or cheating to be valid, as sporting competition and cheating to achieve those results are two linked datasets. The problem starts when two unrelated datasets are linked together, such as the one nominated for deletion. The same could be applied of musicians, academics or other groups of notable individuals - creating similar articles for these would be against WP:NOTDIR criterion 6, as the two datasets are unrelated. That's not an extreme point of view, that's a logical interpretation of policy. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, your interpetation of what is an unrelated dataset doesn't match the coverage by sources or interest in the real world. Disputing my point based on what you happen to think is unrelated is frankly quite irrelevant, you can hardly provide proof they aren't related if I asked you to show it, could you? Yet nobody would have any problem proving that this List is not the collation of unrelated data. Simply type 'footballers in prison' into Google [9] - the top two results show sources supporting the relation, from 2005 [10] and 2007 [11]. So if you think you are somehow upholding a core policy by eliminating this list as indiscriminate, you aren't, you are merely forcing people to use better information sources than Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing what may link an individual between two items, and linking the two datasets together The information you're stating is perfectly valid for an individual's biography and I would never suggest that it should be removed from there. What I am stating is that it's quite clear from WP:NOTDIR that this list is against policy as it's from two logically distinct datasets. The three articles are about a subset of sportspeople (all about footballers) which the media of some nations attach to a predisposition for criminality, and that can be recognised as culturally significant for Britain. But not all sportspeople are footballers, and this is why your selection of which datasets to link is quite important - if you wrote a list of footballers with criminal convictions and prefaced it with the information you've linked to, you'd probably be able to make it featured at some point. Hope this makes sense, Gazimoff 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot quite believe you are now arguing simultaneously that the whole list should be deleted, yet it could be split up into sports, and that one of them could even make it to FA. It's like nobody even wrote WP:PRESERVE with some of the logic behind some of these delete votes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It's perfectly logical. It is regrettable that this isn't clear, despite the careful examples I've made. Then again, it may be that exposure to and manipulation of large quantities of data sets, together with a firm grounding in discrete mathematics, can give a different perspective on this. From a logical point of view, it's quite clear that this is a breach of policy. Many thanks, Gazimoff 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you think gives you the right to write such patronising bollocks, but if I was the sort of person who revealed personal info on Wikipdia, such as my education or professional qualifications, then (I hope) you would never have dared make such a stupid comment. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per arguments above. Jevansen (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind sharing with us which arguments those are, based on established editing guidelines and policies? Many thanks, Gazimoff 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a well-referenced and useful article. As it should be, the article is limited to actual convictions not mere charges. And the details of the crimes are neutrally presented.Cbl62 (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-referenced, useful and neutral are none of them by themselves brightline keep criteria (read my reply to Jim Miller below for example) and basically equates to a WP:HARMLESS argument. Could you provide a stronger rationale? Zunaid 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OVERCAT. This is an obscure intersection of two unrelated criteria (being a sportsperson and being convicted of a crime). The one criteria completely does not relate to the other. The crimes listed here are not committed by these people in their capacity as sportspeople, nor is the crime more central to the person than the rest of their sporting career (at least, not on balance of the people listed here). A glance at the article clearly shows that a wide and disparate collection of individuals are being unnaturally "lumped together" into this list, which is a typical red flag that the categorisation is artificial and entirely inappropriate. As supporting arguments I would add that this list will ALWAYS be hopelessly incomplete (there are literally thousands of sporting codes around the world, and hundreds of crimes, both major and minor committed by the professionals taking part, again, in their PERSONAL capacity), and that no appropriate inclusion criteria are given, or can ever be given (e.g there is no definition of "serious" crime, a LOT of the people listed here are for drink driving, which is not even a criminal offense in all countries, never mind a "serious" one). Zunaid 12:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your central point of it being obscure is just not true in the real world, or in sources. Comparisons are constantly being made about, what is often, a career ending event. Problems with inclusion criteria, which can be fixed, is never a decent argument to bin entire List articles. I am frankly not happy that readers won't be allowed to see which footballers have been convicted of assault/affray, because you think its unfair that it currently also lists dunk driving. I would be more than happy to discuss whether there is a case to remove retired people, or trivial crimes, or whether the crime should be sports related, but frankly, none of that is a reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying but for the record I disagree with you completely. You'll need to convince me that the people in this list have had their "careers ended", and besides which that is not one of the defining criteria of the list itself. If we are going to list people whose careers have been ended by a conviction then that is a completely different list entirely. Also, I only brought up the inclusion criteria as a "supporting" argument (i.e. additional to the main thrust that I was getting at), my central argument still stands. If we restrict the list to crimes that were sports-related (e.g. doping, match fixing, Nancy Kerriganning the opposition), then once again, that is a completely different list, which IMHO has a MUCH more relevant intersection. So in any case this list still comes out looking like an arbitrary intersection. Basically your argument comes down to saying that THIS list is in fact arbitrary, and that you ACTUALLY support 2 different lists which are more relevant. Zunaid 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be a 'completely different' list. You are arguing to delete this article, when in actual fact, your argument is an argument to edit it. It is utterly unnacceptable to ask people to keep jumping through hoops to keep recreating slightly different lists from scratch because the version you happen to find it in at Afd is unnacceptable. The basic premise would be the same, some form of list of convicted sportspeople. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you change the title of the list, then change the inclusion criteria, then change the content to suit the new criteria, how is that not a different list from the original? It is an admission that the original list was the wrong idea straight off the bat. At this point I actually think we are arguing for the SAME outcome, just two different sides of the same coin. Compromise position: can we agree that the best course of action is to split this list off into 2 lists as mentioned (people whose careers have conclusively ended because of a conviction and people who are convicted within the realms of their sport)? Since the titles of the new lists will be different, the argument over moving (and deleting the redirect) vs. cut-and-paste (and keeping the redirect) then becomes an editorial and GFDL issue. Thoughts? Zunaid 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer = Sportsperson. Sportsperson != Footballer. Welcome to Boolean algebra 101 Gazimoff 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above - I don't give a crap about your patronisation, and it certainly has got nothing to do with WP:PRESERVE, a part of our Editing Policy. Welcome to Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't buy the NPOV argument in this case. And as it is a widely covered topic, OVERCAT doesn't apply. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How is this encyclopedic? Zunaid makes a particularly strong argument. These types of lists are not appropriate. Lara 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep impeccably referenced list, and I wouldn't see a NPOV problem even if "List of convicted criminals who played professional sports" was the name. I also do not agree with the OVERCAT argument. Being a convicted criminal is, whether we like the idea or not, a defining characteristic of many notable people. A recorded and sourced conviction does not violate WP:NPOV. Further, eliminating lists like this is contrary to WP:UNDUE by whitewashing relevant, factual, and sourced information from WP. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, no info whatsoever is being whitewashed. Everything is still there in the articles on the relevant people. Your arguments based on "impeccably referenced" and WP:UNDUE are in fact baseless. The list is not "impeccably referenced" at all, in fact most entries only have ONE reference per person. How can one reference be evidence of NPOV? As for your WP:UNDUE argument, it seems to me that HAVING this list in the first place skews the UNDUE weight in completely the opposite direction. Deleting it would in fact ACHIEVE balance, not upset it. Zunaid 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is utterly irrelevant. Eric Cantona won millions of awards (all similarly given weight by being denoted in various standalone lists), and is a screen actor. Yet his conviction for assualt will alway be in the top 5 of any defining characteristic recalled for him. Lesser talents like Joey Barton and Marlon King will never even get beyond their status as footballers fallen from grace as their defining characteristic. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article on Cantona seems to disagree with you. If he were truly notable for being a criminal I would expect to see that in the lead, which it is not. This is a list of living people, so I do not remotely see how you can discard WP:NPOV as being irrelevant. I really don't feel that anyone editing BLPs should hold such an opinion. Kevin (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, you are wrongly assuming our article on Cantona is even remotely correct, which it isn't, unsurprisingly. Please do not assume that just because people don't want this List deleted, it doesn't mean they are utter idiots regarding BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reference is all that should be needed. "On xx/xx/xxxx, article name was convicted of X by the court of Y." is a completely neutral statement. Can their be a differing opinion on such a fact? Is there going to be another source that contradicts the conviction? The facts of a criminal conviction, as stated by the court of appropriate jurisdiction, are just that - the facts. They are neutral automatically. Stating that such a convitction happened can only be seen as violating WP:UNDUE when it is used in such a way as to overemphasize it's importance in the article about a given subject. The existence of a criminal conviction is always an appropriate fact is presenting a complete picture of a person, but must be kept in proportion to the rest of the subjects notable activities in the article. The existence of this list neither conveys nor confers any opinion on the existence of these convictions, it merely acknowledges them. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zunaid. Useless non-encyclopedic list.--Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-evaluate your definition of useless, because even though it is a backwater orphan article with no accompanying category, this list is still viewed over 100 times a day by readers, the only people as usual being screwed over by Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (from article creator) I have to say I don't even understand the reason for deletion listed here. NPOV does not mean you cannot list negative things about individuals. The entries in this list are sourced facts, not opinions. If the list was deleted based on NPOV you would certainly have to delete articles such as List of murderers by number of victims which clearly puts the list members in a negative light. If you want to argue that this is a trivial intersection, please see the previous deletion discussions for why that is clearly without any merit whatsoever. If you wish to argue that this type of article doesn't belong, then you should bring that up in a policy discussion not an AFD. CitiCat^♫ 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since most of the people on this list are not known primarily for their criminal activity, creating a list in which this activity is taken out of context is a violation of our policies on undue weight and biographies of living people. The list is also incomplete — just offhand, I can think of 2 baseball Hall of Famers who pleaded guilty to federal tax-related felonies who are not included in this list. (And no, I'm not going to add them.) *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE would not apply, as this article is not meant to be biographical about any of the people discussed in it. For example, Nuremberg Trials does not discuss the other aspects of the lives of the men on trial. CitiCat^♫ 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Nuremberg Trials were a historically significant series of events in and of themselves. This list is not; it's just a list. Furthermore, suggesting BLP doesn't apply because the list isn't literally a biography won't work neither especially considering the first line reads (their emphasis), "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page" - Alison ^❤ 05:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of a given event does not alter how a policy is applied. I used a well known example so most people reading this would know what I'm referring to without having to look it up. As to your second statement, I am talking about how undue emphasis, which is part of neutral point of view is applied, not BLP. I believe BLP policies are being followed, and you can see my statements on the subject above. CitiCat^♫ 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many others have already made the points I want to make. This is a non-notable intersection and puts far too much weight. . I don't think "it's popular" is a good argument against deletion. Greasy fast food is also popular. That doesn't make it a good choice for a nutritious dinner. You are always going to find someone who likes something. It's a basic fact of life. Kolindigo (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is well-sourced. Notability is clear since the general problem that professional sports individuals give when they are convicted are are being bad role models is a common issue discussed frequently in the media. So claims that this is an intersection without good reason are incorrect. Given good sourcing here's no problem with BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I'd say it's a fairly big BLP problem if we're listing subjects that were found guilty of assault but then acquitted alongside murderers, paedophiles and drug traffickers. This is far too indiscriminate an intersection of data, and only adds undue weight to the subject having a conviction in isolation of the rest of their biographical history. Gazimoff 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as discussed above.These crimes are extensively discussed in the papers including raking these up later when it happens again. This list is well sourced and fair to the sportsman in question since it includes a link to their full article. If any of these don't have a decent article then those can be deleted. The fact that this is an obscure cross categorisation is a reason why it is a list - not a category.filceolaire (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alison. Having been convicted of a crime and being a professional athlete is not a notable association. WP:BLP applies on all pages. This has been established in the past. If that wasn't the case then it could be gamed by creating articles like this one. Obviously that isn't going to work. What you need here is evidence that the theme of the page is notable. Simply gathering information and making a list like this isn't enough. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of notability has been presented, and is already on this page. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - Lots of analysis above, but the basic idea is that this is a cross-categorization that itself has only passing references. On top of that it opens up a wide field of permutations, and dimishes the encyclopedia. On the other side, this topic probably has been discussed, although its notability is questionable. There are substantial WP:NPOV concerns that weigh against inclusion, but on the other hand it has a very specific criteria of inclusion. I would be adamantly opposed to a list of accused athletes, but convicted is a much more reasonable criteria. I could be persuaded otherwise on the criteria I mention. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below is persuasive to me. Shadowjams (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There have been some claims that this is an arbitrary or non-notable intersection. I think those need to be addressed. Law and Business of the Sports Industries: Common Issues in Amateur and Professional Sports Vol. 2 by Robert C. Berry contains an entire chapter on the intersection of criminal law and sports. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology had a symposium on the intersection of criminal law and sports much of which focused on the primary issue of treatment of professional athletes who commit criminal acts. See here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an encyclopedic topic that could be covered, but I don't imagine that the article would simply be a list. My main concern is the non-neutral presentation of each list entry, which a fleshed out article could alleviate. Kevin (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin on this one. While this would possibly support an article on the issue of criminality amongst sports athletes, I don't believe that it supports the generation of a list. Many thanks, Gazimoff 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that claims that this is an arbitrary intersection are incorrect. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then a list of actors who have been to rehab would be fine? Because there is a lot of media hype and actricles on that subject as well. Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Are you trying to claim nobody could ever write a credible neutral and adequately sourced article on the subject of 'celebrity rehab'? While I detest 'other stuff' arguments, since it has alread been used in here to justify deletion, it can also be equally used to justify a keep - other crap does not exist is not an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only difference would be that with a topic such as "rehab", the details wouldn't be as cut and dry as with this article. A person going into rehab would usually being entitled to a measure of privacy under the law as far as the actual details were concerned, and therefore it would be difficult to claim even with sourcing that everything in the article was correct. With criminal convictions the details are generally in the public record, and therefore could be put into an article with an expectation of being accurate. CitiCat^♫ 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Citicat, there are substantial differences between rehab and criminal convictions. There are other differences as well. The general problem of criminal behavior is much more discussed as connected to the issue of role models (see sources cited) than the general phenom of sports figures going to rehab. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While both of these examples might well be made into an article, neither article would simply be a list of the celeb/sportperson next to their misdeed. You would expect to see a degree of discussion of the overall phenomenon, with individual cases mentioned as examples within the prose. This list is not and never will be the article that may be appropriate here. Kevin (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? If there is anything guaranteed to prevent the creation of such articles, it is the continued disregarding of wp:preserve. If this list is deleted, I certainly am not going to bother coming near the topic ever again, be it to create an article or featured list, or to folow through with the odd suggestion that while the whole thing can be canned, portions of it based on specific sports could become FAs or FLAs in themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:PRESERVE about the only thing I'd suggest is userifying, pulling out the relevant bits to create articles on the phenomenons talked about, such as footballers being arrested for violent behaviour or certain role-model groups becoming criminals, citing examples of the phenmenon itself. To have drunk drivers, and people convicted of assault (even aquitted) alongside murderers, drug traffickers and paedophiles does not sit well as a meaningful or useful intersect of data and definately goes against WP:BLP in that it shows the people in the list in a uniformly bad light without any reflection or balance on their achevements - it adds undue weight to the conviction as it's presented in isolation to each subject's full biography. I'm sorry to have to continually disagree with you, but the more I look at this list from a logic as well as a responsibility point of view, the only sensible thing we can do is remove it. WP:PRESERVE doesn't even enter into it - an article on the individual phenomena that this list may include elements of would be heavily substantial to a plain list of names, crimes and citations. Gazimoff 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]