Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of convicted child sex offenders

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 without prejudice against recreating with the caveat of requiring reliable sources for every entry. The numerous concerns over liability are a reason to be careful and require sources, not a reason to not have the article. The arguments against having this as only a list of names, with no additional annotations are valid—if recreated it must provide information and/or context beyond that provided by the category. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of convicted child sex offenders[edit]

Pointless list and potential troll magnet. It duplicates Category:Convicted child sex offenders, which has been fully populated with every article in this list, so no information whatsoever would be lost.Proto::► 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, but rename to include the country these people live in. Markb 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is already a subcategory for Australia in existence. Other subcategories can be created to include other countries to fulfill this requirement. LittleOldMe 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, but consider also the legal ramifications of such a page in the countries in which Wikipedia is read. Emeraude 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the potentially libellous nature of the subject if it is abused. LittleOldMe 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: list of convicted murderers? List of convicted regiciders? List of convicted homejackers? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are not superseded by categories, despite the efforts of some to claim that this is some sort of Wikipedia policy. The fact that an article is a troll magnet is irrelevant to whether it's kept or not (otherwise we'd be deleting Adolf Hitler, for example). However, it should be restricted to those who have been convicted of an offence (as the title states), not just those charged with one (as the intro says). There are no "legal ramifications" to listing those convicted of an offence under the law of any country. Conviction is a fact, not a POV. -- Necrothesp 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above: Wrong. Many countries have legislation that deems a conviction 'spent' after a period with no other offending, i.e. it is as if the conviction never occured and the convict ceases to be a convict. It would then be a criminal offence to claim that the person was an offender. See, for example, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the UK (unfortunately not covered in Wikipedia). There are similar laws in other places. Emeraude 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What absolute twaddle. The fact of a person's conviction is in the written record. What are you suggesting? That all newspapers have to expunge the stories about a conviction from their archives on pain of criminal charges against the editors? That librarians have to go around with a black pen and cross out the records of the trials from the law reports? A spent conviction merely means you're not legally obliged to declare it (and even then, you would have to in some circumstances, such as applying for a job with children or as a police officer). It doesn't mean you haven't been convicted or you're not a previous offender. It certainly doesn't mean people can be prosecuted for saying you were convicted of such and such a crime if that statement is true. In any case, convictions for serious offences are never spent. A conviction can only become spent if the sentence was a maximum of 2½ years in prison. -- Necrothesp 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From [1] "The Act makes it an offence for anyone with access to criminal records to disclose spent convictions unless authorised to do so..... It might be possible for a person with spent convictions to sue for libel anyone making allegations about spent convictions, if he or she can prove that the allegation was made with malice." Emeraude 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come one, of course it's an offence for anyone with privileged access to sensitive information to make it public unless authorised to do so, and criminal records are privileged information. That doesn't mean that information that's already in the public domain doesn't stay there. Convictions are always in the public domain since trials are public and reported in the press. If someone has been convicted it therefore is in the public domain and remains so. It isn't removed from the public domain after their conviction becomes spent. Therefore it is not libellous for Wikipedia to report it. Neither does that webpage say it is, if you actually read it properly. -- Necrothesp 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'anyone' means anyone, not people with privileged access. Of course newspaper archives etc aren't blanked out, I never suggested they were. The point is that a complainant who claims that disclosure of a spent conviction was malicious has a case and the only defence is 'in the public interest'. This exercised the minds of journalists when the Act was passed as you can imagine. Whatever, an interesting side discussion. Emeraude 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and the tendency in the US seems to be the other direction. DGG 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wikipedia is not a directory. Dstanfor 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keepper Necrothesp. If it's good enough for a category, it's good enough for a list. Jcuk 21:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists can be superseded by categories, despite the efforts of some to claim that lists not being superseded is some sort of Wikipedia policy. -Amarkov

^blah_edits 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where exactly does it say to delete a list when you create a category? I would like to see where that is written because it is nonsensical. Wikipedia is not a directory, and has no need for one sentence articles, yet every list in Wikipedia is a directory, as are categories. They are navigational aides, like the index in a book. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steven Fruitsmaak and Dstanfor. feydey 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with condition - the allegations must be sourced. This list seems useful.Baka man 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons above and because Wikipedia is not a sex offender registry Dragomiloff 01:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to have a list and a category Akihabara 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to advocate instruction creep or anything, but is there some kind of policy on lists vs. categories? User A: "If it's got a category it should be a list." User B: "It has a category. It shouldn't have a list." This is the same circular reasoning used on school articles, radio tower articles, malls, etc - "It's a X, of course it's notable" vs. "it's a X, of course it's not notable." --Dmz5 04:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the list offered something over a category, like one-line descriptions of their crimes, it would have value, but this one has nothing but a list of names, making it entirely redundant with categories. Delete Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exacty. If this list would either (a) source allegiations individually and provide dates, or (2) give detail and/or background, it might have added value to a list. As it is, it is unmaintainable and too much of a vandal magnet. Delete-- Marcika
Delete There are so many reasons this is wrong for WP... it's a magnet for WP:OR, vandalism, and possibly legal threats to the foundation. Also, the list is completely unsourced. Also, Wikipedia is not a sex offender list, especially given the sheer number of sex offenders. Think of WP having a list of people convicted for GTA. Not going to happen. On the other hand, you shouldn't delete lists because a corresponding category exists. Lists (in general, not necessarily this particular list) are able to communicate much more information about a topic than a category ever will. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 100% unencyclopedic. WTF. --- RockMFR 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why is wikipedia trying to censor this? Got something to hide guys? --61.114.193.19 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be a registered user for your opinion to be considered on AfD. FYI. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is absolutely not true. It is the decision of the closing admin whether or not an anonymous contributor's opinions should be taken into account. There is no rule stating they should not be. Everyone is entitled to contribute to Wikipedia, and you do not need an account to do so. FYI. Proto::► 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's still a stupid argument, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think anyone's denying that ;) Proto::► 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~libellous - is this even legal?~~ Point taken, argument for deletions stands, however. It's unencyclopedic and can only attract the addition of articles which violate WP:OR and WP:BLP. Also per User:Night Gyr and User:Dmz5 above. --Strothra 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why on earth should it be libellous or illegal? If these people are convicted sex offenders then I can assure you it isn't libellous to say so. A statement is only libellous if it is untrue. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The list itself is not libellous, but by having this easily editable list, it is as though Wikipedia is "inviting" vandals to add names of targetted individuals, such as disliked teachers, celebrities or public figures. On the contrary, if the only way a name is to appear on a list is to have a correctly categorised article for the person (if it can survive the new pages review which is far better patrolled than recent changes) then it is far less likely to contain libellous statements. LittleOldMe 11:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Having patrolled pages for vandalism, this page is so open to abuse; its not even funny. All it takes is a bored schoolkid with an axe to grind, a computer, an extra litigious innocent person and a lawyer with $$$$ in his eyes - Wikipedia foundation can have it's figurative pants sued off. Especially since arguing the matter in this forum, the mods are made aware of the legal implications. --Eqdoktor 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see absolutely no purpose for this list. As above, there is a category for subjects who are convicted offenders AND notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not and should never be a sex offender registry. That's not our job. —bbatsell ¿? 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The list is utterly pointless, and potentially dangerous - bear with me:-
Either - a) you add a name to the list when it has an article, or b) you add it to the list when it doesn't have an article.

If it does have an article, then it can go in the equivalent category, so the list entry is pointless. If it doesn't have an article, then you're adding names, very probably of living people, to a list entitled 'Convicted child sex offenders', without any kind of referenced article to back up such a claim. Think about the implications of that before suggesting this list should be kept. Proto::► 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is perfectly possible to add references to a list! -- Necrothesp 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  So what's the point of featuring names in a list if they don't have an article? Proto::► 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  To encourage articles to be created. You seem to be under the misapprehension that everybody who is notable enough to have an article already has one. This is patent rubbish. If that were the case then why are we bothering to edit at all? The addition of new articles and the expansion of existing ones is the whole point to us being here. -- Necrothesp 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  If you have a name and a reference, you have enough material to write a stub and categorize it. If you don't have enough material for a stub, why are we including it in wikipedia? We're not a directory of every criminal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Darn it, Gyr made my point before I could get back to make it, and after I did all the hard work setting it up, too. Bah. To make it anyway - You have a name, and you want to put it on this list because you havea burning need to point out this guy is a convicted child sex offender. There's no article for this heinous person, so you can only put the name on such a list with a reference (as frankly, if you didn't, someone will block you). So, you find a reference. If you have found a reference, you can write a stub. If you have written a stub, you can put the stub in the category. If you have the stub in the category, the list remains pointless trollbait. Proto::► 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Remember the Dragnet disclaimer of "The names are changed to protect the innocent"? Suppose Wikipedia carries such an exhaustive list. What do you suppose would happen if an innocent person with the same name as one on the list is found? What would happen if something illegal happened to that person as a result of that Wikipedia listing (after all, are we going to list addresses, too? I'm sure that would be illegal in some countries)? This is one HUGE can of worms that we need not open. I repeat and emphasize: delete and salt as keeping it could have huge problems for the Foundation. B.Wind 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever may be the crime, this list would be somewhat vindictive, even without the considerations raised by B.Wind. A category holds articles that hace to be documented. A list can have red links,which is this case would be altogether unfair.DGG 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:NOT#DIR, also some these people are still alive hence falls under an extra strong dangerous dose of WP:LIVING, with WP:V issues. ANY Vandalism of this page for even a second will make Wikipedia liable for a ton of libel damages as pointed out above. Insane to keep this list. --Eqdoktor 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the page will inevitably be vandalised and then we are smack in the middle of a slander lawsuit. --Yamla 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another good example of a worthless category but a potentially valuable list. What this needs is annotation to make it a useful resource for readers. Also, those users concerned with lawsuits and the like are way off base, since for the time being the identical category exists. What prevents someone from adding Mother Theresa or Walt Disney to the category? Nothing...or I should say the same thing that prevents names from getting added to this list: user oversight. Learn to love it because that's what makes wikipedia work. --JJay 18:58, 13 December 2006 (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.