Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Brouillard


 * 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 keep. The "keep" arguments that sufficient sources do exist to sustain and appropriately write this article were not refuted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Louis Brouillard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So the question is this; is someone who has been accused, but never convicted of serious offences actually notable? My thoughts are that this should be merged to Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases, but delete & redirect might also be a valid outcome. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for some resolution on the subject of WP:BLPCRIME as he died after admitting to crimes he was never convicted of and it isn't even clear if the subject should be covered here at all. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There may be a place to mention Brouillard in a larger article, but a stand alone article is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases. But as he was never charged so never convicted the target needs updating and sourcing as it incorrectly states that he was "charged for having raped altar boys". The article may need copyediting as the aforementioned phrase poses a problem as there is a clear presumption of guilt in the phrasing. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not comfortable with an article that covers allegations remaining on Wiki without adjudication, even with the subject now deceased. I also believe it should not be merged and placed on another Wiki page with mention of the allegation. Once the charge has an outcome, I will take another look. Otherwise, I believe it should be deleted, not merged, until there is a finality to the allegations. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. National level coverage of the allegations.. National level coverage of his death (obit level coverage) - AP, USA Today. As for these being merely "allegations" - beyond his relocation from Guam, Brouillard has admitted his role, and has signed an affidavit admitted 20 or more cases. Given the admission by the subject himself, the lack of criminal justice (due to statute of limitations(?) and his being deceased) is not an issue. Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME warns us about including information about accusations of crimes for which the person was not convicted. Confessions are not convictions. History is full of people acquitted of crimes they did not commit but who had signed confessions to these crimes, this can be for a multitude of reasons: police pressure or torture, misplaced guilt, psychological problems, to protect the real authors etc etc. I am not a lawyer but I presume that despite the confession there would have been a trial had the statute of limitations not have prevented it and the court would have examined the confession and its circumstances to see if it was admissable or not. This is all part of due process and necessary to convict. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per national coverage. Per WP:GNG. Editor Icewhiz points out several good reasons for Keeping this article which I agree to fully as well.BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Ultimately the subject is well covered in reliable sources, and any issues with how to present the crime aspect can be dealt with without deleting the article. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep on account of subject verifiably meeting WP:NPERSON and WP:CRIMINAL. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment just as a reminder to the keep !Voter's WP:BLPCRIME covers the recently deceased and unless convicted we should not be creating articles that cover the accusations. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2018 (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.