Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police officers charged criminally in Canada


 * 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 per clear consenus and WP:SNOW. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Police officers charged criminally in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a viable subject for a wikipedia article. Has serious issues with trying to push a point of view. List would in any case be unmaintainable given how low police have existed in canada and the size of the force ©Geni 23:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – This is not a notable topic. Per WP:BLPCRIME, charges alone are improper BLP content; "convicted" instead of "charged" is required in virtually all cases because police are not public figures or generally well known. The topic is most properly a category even if so renamed. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as violating WP:BLP principles for content, and WP:NPOV for the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP - I am the original author of the article. The article includes the word "charged" for a reason.  Many police officers in Canada have been getting away with law breaking with the Crown and Courts not applying the law correctly and playing with the evidence and bogus investigations.  This list is certainly relevant.  In addition, DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE WHEN IT IS UNDER AFD!  The article is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy.  Any police officer "charged" is public knowledge and whether the decision is "guilty" or "innocent" or whatever again the information is public information.  See the citations showing the information in newspaper articles on the Internet freely available to anyone.  Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has or is going to "delete the article" while under AfD. Contentious content about living persons must be removed until consensus is reached on its inclusion. This is not an AfD issue, but a content discussion raised at WP:BLPN and the article talk page. Let's discuss the notability of this topic here, please. JFHJr (㊟) 00:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP doesn't allow lists of non-notable living persons like this, especially when crimes are involved. This is essentially an advocacy page, complete with a linkfarm at the bottom. The Interior  (Talk) 00:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article of this scope and title can never comply with WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPCRIME. Also agree that it is an advocacy page. Delete in it's entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article's creator has explicitly acknowledged above that the purpose of this article is to Right Great Wrongs by tarring all police officers who have been charged with a crime, whether convicted or acquitted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I dont see how this could ever be an encyclopedic topic. And I suggest a SNOW removal.-- The Red Pen of Doom  01:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I second SNOW. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I third it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MergeI suggest that it should be moved or rewrote to List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If all Canadian Police aren't Royal Canadian Mounted Police then change the name of the list to. List of controversies involving the Canadian Police then have a section for each type of Police in Canada. It dont need its own article. Theworm777 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not sure about BLP 1E/do no harm. Police officers are public officials, and not  private citizens; they are  additionally   public officials with a very high visibility who work in situations where they are much more likely to need to use lethal force than other officials, and more likely to encounter situation with the possibility of bribery; consequently the public interest and notability of crimes involving them in their public activities.  DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should mention that I am aware of this discussion because i declined what I considered an absurd A7 speedy on the article, and one of the eds. subsequently asked me to protect it during this discussion so all the material would be visible; I have not done that, because of course all prior versions are visible in the article history DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not even a proper article—it is nothing but a collection of links, both internal and external. See WP:LINKFARM. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It is not a proper article because people are edit warring on the page. It needs to be restored and locked by admin then a debate about the article can start.I have tried to fix the article so it can be debated though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines but people keep removing the info pointlessly. Theworm777 (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * People keep 'removing the info' because it is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. The deletion of such violations isn't 'edit warring' it is required under such policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Under WP:BLPGROUP, BLP does not apply as police are "legal persons" there was no reason to revert and edit war over this. like they have done. Theworm777 (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is utter nonsense. A named individual is not a 'legal person', but a person. Please take your Wikilawyering elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that is why the names were removed. That article is about police not the individuals. As it was changed to by me. I think it should be deleted or merged myself but people are not doing the things the right wikipedia way. Theworm777 (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The links to article naming the individuals concerned weren't removed by you. They related to individuals, not to 'the police' in general. The article violates policy, and the 'Wikipedia way' with violations of BLP policy is to delete them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really dont know I am not a Lawyer. But I think you are wrong and they can be used the way they were used. Under WP:BLPGROUP, BLP does not apply as police are "legal persons" is how I think about about it. Even individual police are "legal persons" I think and they could be named by law. Or WP:BLPGROUP would not allow it is what I am thinking. But I dont want to fight over this with you. We need to see what others and the admin think. We can agree to disagree. Theworm777 (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to be a lawyer, you just have to read the article Legal personality. By your reasoning, lawyers and judges should exempt from BLP. There's no sane reason to exclude them on the basis of their profession. Legal personhood refers to corporations and other organizations that are "persons" in law only, but which have no sentience, brain, mind, soul, whatever of their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What I did was take the names out so it dont fail WP:BLP. It did not name, names. I did not revert it, like the others did without really looking at it and seeing the changes. If there was a problem with the refs after what I did he should have said so here until a consensus is reached and not revered it. I think it will be deleted but it needs to be done the right way. I just came to help when it was listed here Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list Theworm777 (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How many times does this have to be explained to you? It's still referring to those individuals. By your reasoning, if I refer to "an editor who argued BLPGROUP excludes cops" but never name your name, nothing I say can be construed as a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Same as TenOfAllTrades Eomund (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow delete I'm apparently supposed to discuss the complete failure to get what a legal person is here instead of on Theworm777's talk page.  Legal persons are not human beings but legal concepts.  If Texas could execute someone (but has yet to do so), they're covered by BLP.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow delete If Theworm777 feels that these are so important, then he/she may subsequently include this alleged controversy, properly sourced, in the List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police article, the Police in Canada article, or create a List of controversies involving the Canadian Police article. - Jorgath (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow delete The topic is laughably untenable and the lone keep vote -- the author -- wants to keep this topic because they feel that perceived miscarriages of justice in the Canadian legal system justifies a Wikipedia article covering every Canadian cop charged with a crime. I'm not sure a well-reasoned rebuttal is necessary, in this case, but why not add to the blizzard. If there is some notable controversy in Canada regarding cops getting away with serious crimes because of a free pass from The Man, write that article. This isn't that article, this is an article that aims to list every freaking cop charged with a freaking "serious" crime, whether convicted or not, and whether the charge had any basis or not. No. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong snow delete - clearly fails WP:BLP. ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2012 (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.