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

List of California public officials charged with crimes

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the Article's Talk Page:

Hello. I am glad to discuss this subject. It is a matter of public record that all these people have been charged with crimes. If you don't have access to the links for whatever reason, I would be glad to elucidate about any individual person. In order for an encyclopedia of history to be complete, one must include all the history, not just part of it. It might be considered unfortunate if a grand jury decides to indict, but there it is — you can't change the facts. To me, one of the interesting parts of this list is just how many people are on it, and just how active grand juries have been in bringing indictments. Really eye-opening. If one wishes to have another list of just the people convicted, that would be OK. But this list brings a lot more to the table — as one example, just how many indictments have been thrown out, or failed in prosecution. Thanks to all for talking about this. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced and I do not dispute that the people have been charged with crimes. My only concern is including those that have been found innocent or if the case was found to be without merit in with those that have been convicted. I do not think it fits the spirit of WP:BLP, even if there is not a specific prohibition of the listing. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Just two comments, and then I will leave the forum for others: (1) These people are (or were) public officials, and so they voluntarily thrust themselves into public life. They gave up lot of their right to privacy when they ran for election or accepted appointment. (2) History is history (although I think I am repeating myself here). You can't picture a biography of Bill Clinton, for example, without reference to his impeachment by the House, even though he was not found guilty by the Senate. Same for some of the people on this list. Sincerely, yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but in our society, one is innocent until proven guilty. Remember the huge number of investigations, charges and indictments during the Clinton Administration, all of which were politically motivated and almost all of which were found innocent. the trial of the Sec of Ag was so baseless, that the jury foreman took the odd step of apologizing to him for a ridiculous trial. Convictions and only convictions should be the hallmark of a list of this sort.Richrakh (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete. And apologies for the somewhat drastic approach I took to this article - but the topic itself is such an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc, that it seemed the only appropriate course. Listing non-notable individuals who have been convicted of crimes is probably a BLP1E violation (taking into account the insignificance of some of the crimes alleged), but this article lists individuals acquitted of such charges too. In an ideal world, one could go through the article, remove all the acquittals, and all the convictions of non-notable individuals, and reduce the list to a core of significant corrupt Californian public officials - but even then, without a source that said that there was anything notable about the intersection between 'California' and 'crime by public officials', it would look like the breach of WP:SYNTHESIS that it is. It is entirely possible that California leads the world in official corruption (though I doubt it), but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum to engage in research to prove it. Without a source that explicitly states that public corruption in California is any more significant than anywhere else, the list can only be seen as political soapboxing, point-scoring, or a random accumulation of primary research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, it should be acknowledged that this list is well-organized and appears to be well-sourced, and that it represents an impressive organizational effort and a list that could be useful to anyone interested in the subject matter. Any conclusions about "soapboxing" are in the eye of the beholder: if this list is longer than other states' would be, it would most likely be only because California is by far the biggest state. Second, as a matter of American law, GeorgeLouis is right: these are public figures, and in principle there is no legal obstacle to reporting this kind of information. However, Wikipedia's BLP policies weigh more heavily to the side of privacy. One could try to resume a debate whether this should be so in all cases, but I do think the consensus has been clear in prior discussions that under WP policy only convictions would be permitted in a list like this. This very detailed list may have a home somewhere else on the web, at a platform with a less stringent policy on this issue, but probably not here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'well sourced', can I draw your attention to (for example, just because I checked) 'Paul H. Richards II' - the article cites no source whatsoever, and instead links to our own article on Lynwood, California#Government and infrastructure - which in turn cites a "Campaign Legal Center Blog" as its sole source. Maybe this is entirely correct. Maybe Richards was a crook - but we don't have the appropriate level of sourcing to be asserting this, even in the Lynwood article: and we don't cite Wikipedia articles as a source, ever. I've not had the opportunity to look into the sourcing of this article in any great depth, but the closer I look, the less convincing it seems... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, although in that particular case the link actually leads to an FBI press release[1] and Richards' conviction is easily confirmed, e.g. by this Los Angeles Times article[2] (which, by the way, entailed "a sentence that federal prosecutors described as one of the longest in any U.S. public corruption case"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I've not (for obvious reasons) had the opportunity to look at each individual named on the list in detail - but that is rather the point. If one has to resort to searching for evidence oneself, rather than looking at sources actually cited in the list, the whole thing gets increasingly shaky. And on a purely practical perspective, citing one Wikipedia article from another (which is what is happening here) is asking for trouble - articles get altered, citations get replaced with others, and one can end up with an article that no longer supports the material it is being cited for. We shouldn't be doing this - and we don't as a matter of policy. Articles should be self-supporting regarding sources, particularly where contentious material is concerned. All this is rather peripheral to the real issue though - which is whether Wikipedia should include such 'lists' in the first place: and all the evidence I've seen is that the consensus is 'absolutely not'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as Rich says above, "Convictions and only convictions should be the hallmark of a list of this sort" - its been blanked - no need to wait. - Youreallycan 10:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is well-sourced and the topic seems quite notable. As an example of similar tertiary coverage elsewhere, see Political corruption in America: an encyclopedia of scandals, power, and greed. The page shown by that link documents the case of Richard Thomas Hanna in an encyclopedic way. This person is included in the list in question and, as that person is dead, BLP does not apply. This demonstrates that deletion is not appropriate and that ordinary editing to improve the quality of the article is what's needed. Relevant policies include WP:CENSOR and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A side issue re: sources. Atop the references section is the explanation References not on this page are in the articles cited. Access to some newspaper links may require the use of a library card. That's a terrific understatement--the balance of references link to the LA or SF library systems, and can not be accessed without a card. One is accustomed to accepting in good faith an article with several sources which can not be easily accessed, or require payment for access. There are 238 cites here, the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers. WP:SOURCEACCESS offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which can not be easily accessed, but I'm not sure that the guideline anticipated an article with some 200 such cites. Perhaps someone has encountered a similar situation here. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]