Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople cleared of doping charges

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 believe that there is a narrow consensus to delete here, if someone wants the information for a category or merge I can provide it (the BLP compliant information, at least) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople cleared of doping charges

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is extremely POV and it is hard to see how it could make sense at all. Just look at the first 3 entries of "cleared athletes": Two "Tested positive for nandrolone, but was pardoned by national federation" and Lance Armstrong - it would be hard to find more blatant examples of doping than these 3 cases. And the basic problem with this list is a fundamental one: Someone might be cleared for one accusation by someone (e.g. sports court, civil court) for some reason (e.g. being pardoned, procedural mistake of a technically positive doping result), but that does not imply any general clearance. As an example, Marion Jones, who served half a year in jail for charges related to her proved doping, should logically be re-added to this list since a negative B probe in 2006 cleared her of the charges caused by the positive test for EPO in the A probe. Lumialover (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a notable topic with notable entries. Inclusion criteria should be addressed on the article's talkpage and AfD is not the correct forum for these issues. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your claim that there are clearly notable entries (or entries at all). Setting the inclusion criteria itself is WP:OR, or do you have a WP:RS for who to include and who to exclude on such a list? Lumialover (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR refer to an article's content. The inclusion criteria of a list is alway a matter of editors judgement and consensus. An inclusion criteria consisting of sportspeople charged with and subsequently cleared of doping has no subjectivity and hence does not requires WP:reliable sources to support the criteria itself. In such a case, the reliable sources needed are for individual entries showing they meet the criteria. All current entries appear to be supported by such sources. If a person meet the inclusion criteria for the list, and also the relevant notability guidelines for its own article, then they are included on the list, otherwise they are excluded. KTC (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I love how a nomination complaining of POV is itself riddled with POV statements regarding the list content. Lance Armstrong as of writing has never been found guilty of a doping offence. Akhtar & Asif were both acquitted of the respective 2006 charges and as such meet the inclusion criteria stated. It doesn't matter whether you personally, or for that matter every Wikipedia editors think they are or are not a drug cheat. If they were charged with a doping offence, and then cleared then they meet the criteria. This isn't a list of people that were charged with doping but are actually clean, now that's not NPOV. Merely saying they were charged with doping and then cleared is a matter of fact and does not pass judgement on the allegations (general or specific) itself. Re. Jones, if the inclusion criteria include athletes that tested positive in their 'A' sample but then negative in their 'B' sample, then yes Jones would be on the list. If the critera only include those that were charged after testing positive in both samples and then cleared (for whatever reason), then no Jones wouldn't be on the list. KTC (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong was once legally cleared of charges of doping in 1999 (even though medically he clearly used doping), but is definitely not cleared of the current charges.
Jones was once cleared for one specific charge (a positice A probe), and later disqualified and sent to jail after different charges.
Both were once cleared of specific charges, and even a later jail sentence doesn't change that fact. Both deserve being on a list of people being once cleared of some charges, and noone can be proven to belong to a list of people never to have done doping. That's the problem.
That is not a personal problem. I question in the afd if the list makes sense. If consensus is that it does I will follow and enforce the rules (e.g. re-add Jones and defend that if vandals would attempt to remove her name from the list again).
Lumialover (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is a notable one, the list is not indiscriminate, there is or can be a clear inclusion criteria that is unambiguous, objective, with each entry supported by one or more references a la WP:LSC. KTC (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing the sourcing which would support this classification generally per WP:LISTN. And the topic seems too sensitive as no smoke without fire considerations may make inclusion derogatory. Warden (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Covert to category or delete There are so many potentially BLP issues here that having them in a list like this is asking for trouble 'charges' and 'cleared' have so many shades of grey to start with. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your concern, how is having it as a category better than list? A list can provide references to reliable source to justify entry, along with brief explanation to exact circumstance, whereas a category can't. KTC (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and context/balance are the fix for BLP issues, and these are easier to address in an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this piece is to stand, it needs to be rock-solid with its sourcing. It appears that it meets muster in that regard. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not a major problem. Statements like Marion Jones was in 2006 cleared of doping charges. are easy to source (e.g. from press reports covering the trial that sent her to jail later for different doping charges). The problem is that there are no criteria for inclusion that make sense. On first sight the list seems to cover people who never used doping. On second sight many of entries are more He clearly used doping but found a legal loophole to avoid punishment. Lumialover (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article, and (although I am not an expert on WP list policy) seems more like a collection of raw data than a legitimate list. Nobody is notable for having been cleared of a doping charge. They were already notable as sportspeople otherwise the doping thing would have never been mentioned by the media. Info could be put in each person's own article and any really important cases could be mentioned in the articles on doping itself. I don't think we would have (for instance) a "List of people who are known heavy drinkers but have never been arrested for DUI" or "List of pit-bull owners whose dog has never bit anybody." These would be SYNTH, OR, etc. Borock (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So many WP:BLP issues... I think the text accompanying the names could be rife with possible opportunities for asserted libel.

As an example, "The test, while positive, was technically incorrect" at Diane Modahl's listing, implies to a casual reader that the source material states the athlete was guilty as charged but then got off on a technicality, but that is not the way the BBC("Diane Modahl was cleared of drug taking a year later after an independent appeals panel accepted evidence bacterial activity could have increased testosterone levels while the sample was not refrigerated") or the Telegraph saw it ("...for failing a drugs test at a meeting in Portugal - a decision overturned a year later after they received proof that the test was faulty..."). To even be mentioned on this List could have derogatory 'damning with faint praise' real-life connotations. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I agree with Shearonik, especially his 'damning with faint praise' comment. We already have a List of doping cases in sport about the athletes who have been "found guilty" of doping. Now we will have another article about those who have not been found guilty. Even though it meets the letter of BLP notability, do we really want seperate articles on people who have only been accused of something?

Instead, we could merge the article's main section with the List of doping cases in sport article in separate sections for each letter (with a new column for "Description"; that is, Reason for clearance or anything else), after getting rid of entries on Mark Hylton, Marina Trandenkova and anyone else whose reference(s) prove unreliable. This would turn a negative "faint praise" into a positive "they were accused of something but it proved not to have happened". Or maybe this is still too negative? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2012 (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.