Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American public officials convicted of crimes (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No policy based keep !votes, default to delete — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

List of American public officials convicted of crimes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was considered for deletion in 2009 (nominated by me) and it was kept on the grounds that it could be improved. But it has not been improved since then. My contention is that the list inherently violates WP:NPOV by indiscriminately preferring some officials and crimes over others. Obvious examples: there are no governors; some of those convicted through Watergate are listed and some not; Patrick Kennedy, who was given probation, is included, while Dan Rostenkowski, who did serious time (along with dozens of other congressmen who have been to jail), is not; and of course "public officials" is ridiculously broad--there are probably thousands of American public officials who have been convicted of crimes. Given that there is no way this list could be or will be edited to give due weight to each crime that falls within its category, it is biased, and about some of the most contentious issues in American society. Renaming it is impossible without completely changing the scope as written; for example, I'd have no objection to a list of members of congress convicted of crimes, but that would leave out all the Watergate people (and there have been so many that aren't here that it would be just as easy to start over from scratch). It's time to delete this. Chick Bowen 06:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". The list is stated to be incomplete and it is our policy that articles may be imperfect.  AFD is not cleanup but I have demonstrated that improvement is quite feasible by adding a good source: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)
 * Last AfD was four years ago. Re-nom is acceptable  p  b  p  23:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment - Inherent problems with the parameters. We are informed that this is a list "which includes only those in the highest levels of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches," but then you've got two presidential advisors (arguably not "public officials" at all), a congressman, and an Attorney General listed for the "Executive Branch." Then you've got five more or less random Congressmen and a US Senator, plus a Vice President, who is a member of the Executive Branch, listed for "Legislative Branch." And exactly one judge for "Judicial Branch." A truly pathetic effort, issues of coatracking and the utter lack of of historical context or logical connection between any of these aside. What about Governors? State legislators? Are these not the "highest level" of politics for their respective states? Oh, so you mean federal officials then? Completely worthless list, illogical and poorly executed, uncompletable. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The parameters are not inherent as the article has not had them for most of its life and they just seem to have been added as the idea of one editor during the previous AFD. It will be a trivial matter to develop the list by basing upon a substantial source such as Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed.  Note also that we have category:American politicians convicted of crimes which seems much the same. Warden (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So an elected county commissioner convicted of Driving Under the Influence of intoxicants would have been includable in this piece "for most of its life"?!?! Yikes. I don't have a problem with a category, I do have a problem with a stand-alone article, which is like a deep pocket around a molar and apt to catch food and bacteria and gunk and to get infected. There is no logical connection between the figures on this list. List of persons convicted in the Teapot Dome scandal or List of persons convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal and suchforth would be encyclopedic and fine, in my opinion. This is an amorphous catch-all (which incidentally catches almost nothing) and is thus simultaneously inherently problematic as a magnet for POV warriors and ineffective as an internal navigational device. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been around for 7 years and doesn't seem to have attracted any inappropriate cases like your straw man. So the rhetoric about teeth is just a fanciful way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Against this we can set the existence of multiple third party encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia of Corruption in American Politics which demonstrate the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually more a question of WP:ITSHOULDNTBEHERE for me. We keep seeing a cite for the same "encyclopedia of corruption" as if that is somehow synonymous with the subject here, which it is not. Carrite (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the second encyclopedia that I have cited and I cite a third one below. Warden (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Richhoncho (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Bad nomination. Don't game the system by nominating the same article repeatedly.  This is an obvious encyclopedic topic.  All of these events get coverage of course.  I'm rather surprised the list isn't much longer.  No valid reason to delete it.  It would be useful to list the years they were convicted for all entries, and perhaps add in a column feature for easy sorting.   D r e a m Focus  19:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, the last AfD was in 2009. Perfectly acceptable to re-nom now.  Also, you haven't considered WP:NOT  p  b  p  23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of things, folks. First of all, I really don't see how it's "gaming the system" to relist an article after four years when there has been no improvement. In any case, my actions are immaterial to the question at hand, which is whether the article meets WP:NPOV. Also, a book on "Corruption in American Politics" has been mentioned several times. Please note that we have List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses, List of United States state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, which are clearly encyclopedic topics. The list under discussion does not address corruption, but any crime, and indeed several of those listed committed crimes that have nothing to do with their office. Chick Bowen 20:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment that it is extremely bad form for a single editor to nominate a Keep-ed article at AfD a second time. However, community standards do change and the standards for lists in particular have been trending towards "more stringent" rather than "more loose." I don't find this particular second nomination unreasonable. My two cents. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that anyone, including the nominator, did anything much with the article since the last AFD — the talk page is almost empty — and so that's just WP:NOEFFORT. Warden (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:NOEFFORT is just an opinion piece, an essay. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As there are several lists and categories to which the nominator does not object, this might be made into an umbrella list of lists for the most part. There are other crimes which are politically and historically significant too.  Chappaquiddick is a major example here and that appears as an entry in The New Encyclopedia of American Scandal, for example.  A similar example in the UK recently is Chris Huhne in which a motoring offense blew up and brought down the minister. Warden (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. What does Chappaquiddick have to do with Teapot Dome and what does that have to do with Iran-Contra? Nothing. Absolutely no logical connection. Each of those have articles, there will be nothing lost by putting this poor idea for an article to permanent rest... Carrite (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a far inferior content fork of the encyclopedic articles List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses, List of United States state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses. Carrite (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT: What exactly constitutes a public official? A city councilman in Anadarko, Oklahoma?  The Harding County game warden?  And what constitutes a crime?  A parking ticket? Public urination?  Sure, the people in this article, and sometimes even the crimes they committed, are notable.  But NOT trumps the GNG.  The reason it makes sense for specific crimes lists to exist while this one is deleted are that they are more clearly defined than this article.  People know what murder is.  People know what treason is.  People know what bribery is.  A "crime"?  Not so much  p  b  p  23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that we are listing those found guilty of perjury, unlawfully withholding information, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and whatnot, not just corruption as the other list do list. Its important to show how many times elected officials have been found guilty of these things.  The list can be renamed to have "Federal government" in it somewhere, since that's all it list.   D r e a m Focus  00:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Its important to show how many times elected officials have been found guilty of these things". That is a by-the-book POV statement.  Wikipedia's job isn't to argue that all politicians are corrupt, nor is it to argue that all politicians are upstanding.  And as for the "whatnot", that's the rub, what constitutes whatnot.  Far better to have lists of a few significant crimes.   p  b  p  06:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that all politicians are corrupt, just listing those that have been found guilty of that in a court of law. Since corruption is a huge part of politics, and all crimes have ample coverage when a politician at the federal level is involved, and these crimes do in fact affect their positions, people voting against them in the next election, if it not major enough to force them out of office entirely.   D r e a m Focus  10:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete due to the vague and unclear requirements and the better formed articles which overlap on the subject listed above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete vague overgeneralizing content fork of other articles that Carrite mentioned. This list's inclusion criteria is so vague that you could probably insert Thomas Paine there.--Staberinde (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an alphabetical-by-branch list of American public officials of the Federal government convicted of crimes or misdemeanors.  D r e a m Focus  18:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Staberinde is right; Paine would meet the criteria you name. He was secretary of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, so he was a federal official, and years later was convicted of sedition in absentia in Britain. Chick Bowen 21:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just stupid. You have to use common sense on these things.  He was not convicted of any crime that anyone in America then or now or ever would consider a crime.  Foreign leaders in the crazy nations convict in absentia, recent American presidents, of various war crimes and whatnot, but we don't take them seriously.  And he wasn't part of the American Federal Government, he held that job before the United States of America existed, so it wouldn't meet there criteria anyway.   D r e a m Focus  23:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV WP:BLP violating content fork with no certain criteria for inclusion. Secret account 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any list that can include such a wide range of individuals (public officials?) by crime (which crime? what crime?) can and must fail POV and WP:BLP. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:Content fork with some apparent POV; inclusion criteria are indiscriminate; seriously incomplete -- particularly in view of the broad inclusion criteria; and the selectivity inherent in its incompleteness creates a BLP issue. It was reasonable to keep it 4 years ago, on expectation of improvement, but nothing happened. (There were only about a dozen edits between the end of the last AfD and the beginning of this one; most of those edits were changes to the categories.) Unless this is a totally transformed article (i.e., near-FL quality) by the end of this discussion, it's time to delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (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.