Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of convicted or indicted religious leaders


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

List of convicted or indicted religious leaders
I created this a year ago after working on the subject of Articles for deletion/List of controversial religious leaders. It was fun to work on for a time, but the qualifications are largely arbitrary in time and scope. It may just be an almost random hodgepodge of anyone who claims to head a religion and got arrested. Still I'm not totally certain so I'm not voting myself.--T. Anthony 03:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename - "List of convicted religious leaders" would be better. Those who are indicted but found not guilty would effectively be defamed by this category; article would need to be edited down to comply with new scope. Arbitraryness could perhaps be resolved by defining the terms really clearly in the article intro. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 05:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd considered a rename to limit it to those convicted. I have this fear though that people would just start searching for petty meaningless crimes of religious leaders, like going 60 in a 55 zone, or go back to the Middle Ages to add Joan of Arc or Jesus. (As has already happened)--T. Anthony 06:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying someone was indicted when they were indicted is not defamitory. Best defence for slander or libel is what you claim being true. WilyD 14:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's US law. I believe there are countries where it is still libellous even if true.--T. Anthony 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of any? It's certainly not the case in any where I know the law (admittedly, a handfull) - but if provably true statements are libelous, Wikipedia has tens of thousands of instances of libel in it. WilyD 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I may have been misinformed. I thought there were British Commonwealth countries where a truthful statement can be libellous if it had not been common knowledge and does the libeled serious damage. Although this may be defamation or slander or I'm just mistaken.--T. Anthony 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Canada, anyways, requires that libellous statements be false. For information to be includable in Wikipedia, it needs to be verifiable for reliable sources so everything that goes into any article has to already be public knowledge. WilyD 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no lawyer, but I try to stay familiar with the law. I know in the US (where WP's servers are located), truth is an absolute defense against libel-proof of a statement's truth means it can absolutely never be considered libel. If someone was indicted for a crime, it is entirely true to say that they were "indicted for" or "accused of" that crime (though, until they're convicted, one may not say that the person committed that crime, only that they are accused). Seraphimblade 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The comments above were originally posted at Articles for deletion/web directories for some reason, so I moved them here, see . — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as even the guilty get acquitted from time to time. As long as verifiable information is presented in a neutral manner, the readers can draw their own conclusions. Useful, interesting list. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion, perhaps we could limit it to those charged and/or convicted with felony offenses, if we wanted to establish a threshhold for the word "serious" as used in the introduction of the list, however regardless of the standard used I believe the acquittals should be duly noted as such, but not deleted from the list. — CharlotteWebb 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Felony offences become problematic for relgious leaders in countries that don't make that kind of distinction, for example. WilyD 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clear consensus should be established on the article's talk page as to what constitutes a "serious" crime, especially in the case of what would be misdemeanors in the US. Without this, the article could conceivably include every preacher that ever got a speeding ticket. Seraphimblade 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-nessecery list, individual indictments can be mentioned on individual's pages. Rever e ndG 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a boundless list. This is better delt with on individual pages per Rever. meshach 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely unnecessary list. Could be seen as inflammatory. RichMac (Talk) 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is the only record of its kind which collates the endevors of a disparate and segmented global movement. It certainly assists academics and proffesionals get a snapshot of behavior. It should only be those charged, and/or convicted of serious crimes. It should be a permanent record of such. A title could include more contemporary versions, ie: "Religous, Spiritual or Human Development movements".Legalist 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this means. How is religious leaders being convicted of crimes a global movement? How is it any more a global movement than political leaders being convicted? Granted we do have List of prominent Australian politicians convicted of crimes andList of American Public Officials Convicted of Crimes, but neither is a movement.--T. Anthony 13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * while they are unaffilliated they have common ancestory, and are part of a progression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement. it is a progression which permeates all societies, but at the same time does not come under any one jurisdiction. A lttle like the new banking regime. hence there is no single authority keeping statistics.Legalist 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * keep and 'rename Objectivity requires us to limit it to convicted. Commons sense may require it to limit it to those where it is not religious persecution, and there will be many who disagree with any line we may draw there. An objective statement of the nature of th crime convicted is essential.I am leary of a list like this being used in unproductive ways.
 * I would heartily agree with an earlier suggestion, which may not have been meant seriously, for political leaders, country by country. Perhaps we may already have them? They certainly fit notability. DGG 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is whether or not someone has been indicted of an offence a subjective evaluation? WilyD 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In the US, at least, indictment is a very specific step from a grand jury. If one is indicted by the grand jury, it is factually and indisputably correct to state that they have been "indicted for the crime of (insert crime here)." It is not even the same as having been "charged", as indictment requires the participation of a grand jury, while charging is generally an administrative decision by a district attorney. Of course, this may not hold true in all countries. Seraphimblade 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Australian Law has a similar function, a person is charged by the police, the case then travels to the courts where it goes through a committal phase, a Judge decides whether there is enough evidence, or whether the case has merit,the case then proceeds to a trial. It would be appropriate to include only those who have been "Committed" to stand trial.Legalist 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename to remove "indicted". Useful for cross-referencing from one article to another. WMMartin 17:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * delete as any information about a particular religion (convicted leaders etc) should be within the site for that religion. I can't imagine a proper encyclopedia having an entry like this. You could always cross-reference between sites. Cooldude7 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is entirely possible to reliably and verifiably determine whether a person has been indicted for or convicted for a crime without any original research. The article should only include religious leaders who are notable (including those who became notable by being indicted or convicted), however. Seraphimblade 00:56, 30 November 2006 (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.