Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents 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. I am closing this early per the WP:SNOW results, the serious WP:BLP concerns (which have not been rebutted and in fact were reinforced by some comments), and the fact that at least part of the article falls under WP:CSD#G4. I can't see any benefit in keeping info that several have argued violates BLP, something we must take seriously, for even a few more days just to be sure we reach 7 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada[edit]

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

Back in June, the AFD for Brian Whitlock and the AFD for Jordan Dale Lucas were closed overwhelmingly as delete. As stated by User: Bearcat,

"As sad as acts of animal cruelty may be, they're not in and of themselves sufficient to make a person notable enough to be permanently included in an encyclopedia, except in extraordinary circumstances which I don't see being claimed here. Public shaming of criminals is not what we're here for."

The user who created these articles and strongest advocate for their existence during the AfD stated he would keep them on the encyclopedia by copying and pasting them into this current article. While this in theory covers the BLP1E issues raised in the AfD, it is entirely against the consensus and conclusions decided. The cases listed in these articles are not notable cases, but rather simply attempts to include potentially BLP violating information previously ruled unfit for the encyclopedia. Now, if this were to be revamped to consist only of cases that would be considered more notable/significant it would be a different story, but for all I know those don't even exist (maybe they do). As of now, this is equivalent of List of Australian criminals including only local bank heists, grocery store robberies, and carjackings to shame specific people. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I should probably point to WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS discusses the encylopedia as a whole and how to distinguish between minor and noteworthy news stories. The principle is still violated by an article whose purpose seems to be to collect NOTNEWS failing stories into one place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nominator's statement rings true based on the genesis of this article which was basically a cut-paste combination of the two articles deleted by community consensus only three days earlier. This is basically a matter of G4 via different means and is pretty poor form. The handful of minor cases added since to make this article more substantive isn't convincing. This is just a way to sidestep WP:BLP1E by WP:SYNTH'ing unrelated cases together to form an article. Delete this and trout/reprimand the creator. Stalwart111 04:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a WP:COATRACK for a lot of non-notable news stories. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just one minor quibble; this format actually doesn't resolve the WP:BLP1E issues that pertained to the separate articles. Rather, BLP rules including BLP1E are still applicable here, because we're giving information about living people in the article and not just naming them in the context of a narrative depiction of an overall story — Iists of smooshed-together biographies of non-notable people are still biographies of non-notable people no matter what the article's title is or isn't. That said, my argument in the earlier discussions still applies (and thanks to nom for the citation!): no matter how appalling these people's actions may be, Wikipedia does not exist as the public shaming wall for every last dumbass who happens to commit a crime, and no evidence has been presented that any of these people, or their acts of animal cruelty, have attained sufficient notability to warrant being highlighted in an international encyclopedia for what could potentially be forever. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hello, I am the author of the article. A list or annotated list is allowed at Wikipedia. Each item on the list is notable with several citations from internationally recognized third-party reliable sources. This article should be kept and expanded not deleted. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "list" is just a compilation of material previously deleted by community consensus and this "article" is just the result of you not liking those results. Take your list-of-deleted-content idea to WP:DRV is see what people have to say there. Stalwart111 12:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list is not simply a collection of material found too BLP-violating to be included in its own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the articles violated BLP1E, but most material is germane and well sourced, and therefore suitable to a more general parent article.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:BLP and all of its subclauses, including BLP1E, applies to any article, regardless of its title, that contains information about living people at all. It doesn't matter whether the information is sitting in a standalone bio or a subsection of a list — if it contains any information about a living person at all, it's still subject to all the BLP rules. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Yes, WP:BLP as a whole applies everywhere. But WP:BLP1E is the subsection of that policy that specifically applies to the existence of an independent article for people of low notability and known only for one event. That's what it forbids. It explicitly encourages merging the information in a parent article: " In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.". Regardless of the destiny of this specific article, it would be nice if policies are quoted and understood correctly and not merely handwaved. See WP:CRYBLP.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E does not only apply to independent articles. This is not an article about a specific event in which these six people all had defined, verifiable roles; it's just a list of non-notable BLPs made over in unconvincing "but it's a list of events!" drag that does not satisfy the specific conditions under which you are allowed to include information about BLP1E's in Wikipedia. (You might want, for starters, to think very carefully about the rather big difference between "article about an event" and "list of (unrelated) events".) Any information at all about a living person still has to pass BLP1E conditions: you cannot, for instance, get around them just by merging the exact same information into a list of unrelated non-notable incidents instead of six separate unrelated non-notable biographies. Any information about a living person still has to meet all of WP:BLP, including 1E, no matter what article it's in — even where mentioning a person in an event article does satisfy BLP1E, that policy still covers what type of content the event's article is or isn't allowed to contain about the person. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that BLP1E applies to something else than independent biographical articles, and also I disagree a list of events is akin to a list of BLPs. You are conflating "BLP, broadly meaning, applies to every part of WP" (true) with the fact that there is a section of BLPs that talks about a certain type of articles. However thank you for clarifying your position. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in BLP1E states or even implies that it only applies to one particular type of article; rather, it governs what we can and cannot write about people who fall under BLP1E in any article to which any content at all about a BLP1E could possibly be added. No matter what the article's title is, BLP1E still applies, still places specific limits on what you can or cannot do with the information. For instance, even if you tried to add information about Jordan Dale Lucas directly to cat on the grounds that that's the type of animal he was convicted of cruelty toward, BLP1E would suddenly be applicable directly to cat as long as that information was present in the article — and even if you give the article a title that calls it a list of events instead of a list of people, the content is still about the people. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing? BLP1E states: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:[...] - which is pretty clear wording that it is about the suitability of a stand-alone bio: no more, no less. And in fact many BLP1E articles have been preserved, by converting them in articles about the event, trimming the biographical information that is not related to the event, and so on: exactly what BLP1E itself advices to do. About your example: the information would not be added to cat because of WP:UNDUE, mostly, certainly not because of BLP1E. If there are further doubts, I suggest BLP/N or WT:BLP as venues, instead of this AfD. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That quote certainly precludes standalone articles about BLP1Es, I won't (and didn't) argue with that. But it doesn't contain even one word which limits BLP1E as only being applicable to standalone bios. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked clarification on WT:BLP. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as recreation of WP:BLP-violating material already deleted at previous AfD's. Wikipedia is not a platform for animal rights activism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: given the WP:BLP policy issues raised during discussions at the previous AfD's for the Whitlock and Lucas articles, I have asked for input on this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a BLP nightmare. Giant Snowman 14:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, previous deletions of the individual articles about the persons per WP:BLP1E made sense. Conversely an article on the events is instead perfectly allowed and allowable. In fact, WP:BLP1E explicitly says: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - This is exactly what has been done here: even better, instead of having single event articles of dubious individual notability, a stronger list has been made. Therefore it is absolutely misleading and improper to refer of the deletion of the individual entries: information which is not suited to its own article can be instead be destinated to a comprehensive, larger article (per WP:PRESERVE as well). I agree entries should be trimmed, but this is a mere editing issue. So far everything seems fairly sourced, so I see no serious WP:BLP issue here. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But a list article where all 4 entries would not be considered noteworthy enough to remain cannot be trimmed, simply cleared, which doesn't really get anywhere.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seem well cited. They would just be WP:BLP1E violations by themselves, but BLP1E applies to the existence of a separate, individual article. There is just some trimming to be made here and there in the text. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people are still subject to BLP. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they are, but they are not subject to BLP1E. This is an article about the events. I understand this is going to be a snow delete, but I'm perplexed about the way policy is twisted here. --cyclopia ^speak! 07:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are still subject to BLP1E. This is not an article about a single event in which these people played properly sourced roles within a narrative depiction of that single event — it's just a list of discrete, unrelated events whose only substantive content is formerly four, now suddenly six smooshed-together BLPs. If, say, instead of animal cruelty charges these people were being discussed for their roles in the 2012 Burlington VIA derailment, their names could be mentioned in context within that article — but you would still be violating BLP1E if you added personal information about their private lives outside of the event itself, or if you created a separate non-narrative List of people involved in the 2012 Burlington VIA derailment to get around the fact that you could neither add personal information to the main article nor spin off separate standalone biographies. It's the content, not the title, that constitutes the difference between whether an article is about "events" or "people" — and the content here is still six distinct BLP1E sketches of unrelated people who are still not notable enough for Wikipedia to have any information about at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per Andy's comment at the rescue list:

"Note that this list consists largely of two articles previously deleted by overwhelming consensus on grounds of non-notability and WP:BLP violations. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy and 'righting great wrongs'"

p b p 14:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
Delete for ridiculous BLP concerns and the article's fundamental nature as, as Laurent puts it, a coatrack for news stories. Or maybe merge to List of bad people, or perhaps List of things some seriously evil jerks did. Or wait no just delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there are thousands of cases of animal cruelty that are mentioned in the news each year, I don't think you can possibly list all of them. If someone could find cases that were notable based on them resulting in sufficiently large protest or petitions, or having elected officials pass stronger laws based on them, then the article would be valid for Wikipedia. The one entry that stands out now is the one that states there were 130,000 people signing a petition. But the reference links to a totally unrelated article about a cat. Also, was it groups signing a petition, or sending in their signature, or just internet voting, and can you be certain it was accurate? If someone were to find a list of all the laws passed about animal cruelty in Canada throughout history, and see if any actual cases sparked them, then that'd certainly be encyclopedic. Dream Focus 16:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the COATRACK and BLP issues identified above. It seems to me to not be particularly encyclopedic, as it bundles together a bunch of events of unclear notability. Anything of significance could instead be added to Cruelty to animals#Canada or Cruelty to animals#In theory and practice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am pretty much opposed to any "list of every incident of a very common type ever" on general principle, and this one is obviously a WP:BLP hornet's nest and an obvious WP:COATRACK. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, a WP:COATRACK actually is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. - doesn't seem the case here. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue, for the record, that this does fall under the "Attack Page" subtype of WP:COATRACK, given that it's serving to present negative information about a bunch of WP:BLP1Es under the guise of being a list of notable incidents. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grouping together a list of unencyclopedic incidents does not make an encyclopedic list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. As per Giant Snowman. It is a BLP nightmare of non-notable people that are listed in a hall of shame tabloid article here at WP. Political gaffe is fine but if we keep this article then next we will have People who have been seen kicking a dog in Spuzzum.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name-and-shame is not Wikipedia's role. Campaigns against animal cruelty are great, but they must not be conducted at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - BIG TIME I'm voting keep on IAR grounds. Any low-life that beats an animal needs to have their name put into cyberspace for eternity, same is true for any low-life that beats a child. I say name 'em and shame 'em KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to start your own separate "name and shame the lowlifes" website somewhere else, I wouldn't stop you. But that is not, and will not become, Wikipedia's role. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Nobody is defending the morally bankrupt jackasses that abuse animals, but this is not the village stocks, it is an encyclopedia and IAR is not applicable as what you propose does not improve the encyclopedia, which is the one and only reason for ignoring a rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even if I'm the lonely keep !vote above, for sure name-and-shame is not the reason I feel this should be kept, and it should not be actually the reason for any decision here.--cyclopia ^speak! 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per other arguments above and, too many to list everything significant, by nature, must cherry-pick. Bummer though, and I vote this was as a member of wikiproject animals, but would be like "list of rapists in the United States" or something. Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.