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. There is consensus that deletion is warranted due to BLP issues. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians in India charged with corruption[edit]

List of politicians in India charged with corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a BLP nightmare; it is already under indefinite protection due to BLP violations. A linked category is currently under CfD, while a similar article was deleted by AfD in March 2012. GiantSnowman 11:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or confine to those found guilty of corruption. The way in which the Indian political and judicial systems operate make the usefulness of this article extremely moot even if there were no issues with BLP. As the nom say, there are in fact continuous issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how does this resolve the BLP maintenance nightmare? That list is itself a mess and will be more so with a merge. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to name who is charged, accused, convicted, or anything else. There should be a table matching particular scandals with the key figures which the media has associated with the scandals and from there readers can click the names and read their biographies. There is no need to describe how anyone is affiliated with any scandal but everyone in the list ought to have a citation which mentions their involvement somehow. People should be named as associated if there is heavy media coverage describing their association, but the article itself does not need to describe their association. I do not think there should be an article which summarizes accusations against anyone, but it will usually be incontestable that certain names are associated with certain scandals. If a scandal itself is notable and a scandal article lists names of people associated with the scandal and the individual's biographies also mention the scandals then there is room on Wikipedia for a list article which connects these two bits of non-controversial information for the benefit of readers. Here is an example of a list which names names - List of federal political scandals in the United States. There are other precedents for this. The controversy in this article is not that scandal articles are naming politicians or that politicians biographies mention scandals - the problem in this article is the phrase "charged with corruption". There is no agreed-upon definition of either "charged" or "corruption" in this context and those words need to be dissociated and replaced with accurate descriptions. An accurate description is "associated". In the "List of scandals" article there should be an "associated persons" section next to each scandal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I'll have a think over the (long) weekend. Are you aware that over two-thirds of the present Indian Union lower house either have been convicted of or are facing allegations of criminality? That is just a single house in a bicameral system that also has bicameral houses at state level. And are you aware that this level is nothing particularly new? I'll try to find the source for this - it was The Hindu or some other quality thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one source that says one-third. There is something new - more people worldwide are interested in reading summaries of notable information from reliable sources about these things. I am aware that many Indian politicians have been convicted but just because someone is convicted does not mean they are guilty, and allegations do not mean anything at all. I would prefer to steer conversation away from guilt, accusation, conviction, charges, investigation, serving jail, or anything else which is debatable. If a scandal article mentions a person and that person's biography mentions the scandal then that ought not be debatable that the two things have an association. I think that might even be a good inclusion criteria for the list - the scandal and the person both have to be independently notable and their articles must reference each other with good sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing new about the situation and the issue can be (and is) more sensibly documented by other means. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree - this should be managed in the scandal article and the biography article, but there is a need for the list of scandals to be matched in a single page with the persons who are associated with the scandal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the average criminal trial in India lasts 10 years and then anyone found guilty will not go to jail until they get an appeal of some sort, which may take years more. The motive behind making this compilation is to get information to readers so waiting for a trial to resolve is not helpful. Also, some people are associated in name with many high-profile scandals but never found guilty of anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So wait ten years before adding them. I assume that there are people accused of this in 2002 who can be added now then? If they're not found guilty, then don't add them. Lugnuts And the horse 08:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify one thing: every single person in this article has been charged either judicially or by a special agency. Or, at least, that's is the consensus about how it's supposed to be; if something crept in as just an accusation, then it should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations should stay on Wikipedia as long as they are clearly stated to be accusations. Thats staying neutral; not deleting it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... because?—S Marshall T/C 06:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because these accusations are mostly the reason why these subjects become notable per WP:GNG. These people don't necessarily pass "significant coverage" without these accusations. Its like writing about Bach and not mentioning music. Non-locals don't know if Kanimozhi has worked for providing job opportunities in rural areas. They didn't even know if she was daughter of Karunanidhi until 2G spectrum scam came out. People in most parts of India would associate her with this scam and not with her work on woman empowerment or whatever.
If the accusation is itself notability, it will go in the subject's biographical article. If it can stay there, it can also stay on any other form of relevant article. For eg. Corruption in India can be a good host for merging this list. But given that article's already huge length this list can be forked out for technical reasons. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above, I've distinguished between mentioning the accusation in the subject's biographical article on the one hand, and mentioning them in a "list of shame" like this one on the other. How do you react to that distinction?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean it will be undue to have a separate list? Had there been an essay on Australian journalists involved in sex crimes, there would have been a list of those people; either embedded in it or stand-alone. This is nothing different. Its just a forked content of Corruption in India which has been taken out for technical reasons. Would the list be undue had it been embedded in the article? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. WP:BLP applies no matter where. No matter who. Collect (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting User:Qwyrxian; "Can someone please point to me where in WP:BLP it states that high profile people (which every politician with a WP article is) cannot be described as having been accused of a crime? I'm specifically drawing the line here at politicians for which charges have been filed in a relevant court of law (or, in India, there are bureacratic, extra-judicial equivalencies)?" §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They can be described as having been accused of a crime, if it is verifiable that they have been accused, but on their own biographical pages -- not on a list of people charged with crimes. I don't think Wikipedia wants a list that would mix the guilty together with the accused-but-innocent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we are good here. The list clearly, from it's title also, says that this is list of people "charged" with corruption. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We" may be good, but I don't think this list is. There are people on the list who were convicted, people who were acquitted, people who are awaiting trial, and people in other situations as well. Those who have not been tried yet, much less those who were acquitted, should not be placed on a list of "charged" people along with those who were convicted. Also, I disagree with the idea that "these accusations are mostly the reason why these subjects become notable"; most of these people have held significant political office such as being ministers at either state or federal level. As such, they would have qualified as notable under WP:POLITICIAN whether or not they were notable under WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now your comment suggests that some entries, (not majority of them) are wrong; especially the one who are acquitted. If any such entry exists, that should be removed. All other convicted, awaiting trial, etc. can be categorized under "charged" as they are charged. Hence they are right. We can have lists of all such subcategories if need be. That way the title and content would match precisely. Or we can think of another name or another location for this list.
And your notability comment sounds like a outsider's comment. Although WP:POLITICIAN allows creation of articles of all people who have been members of parliament, we don't create stubs of all these people. Why should we have articles that only say "PQR was member of parliament form this to that day."? (Ofcourse, for the sake of argument you would agree that such one liners should not be made. But when such articles are created you would come and ask for deletion as they fail GNG. Could you be any more hippocratic?) No one is denying existence of these biographies. They are notable to stay on Wikipedia irrespective of scandals because these people held/hold positions. But biographies don't limit themselves only upto Wikipedia's policies of notability. Nor do these policies say that only information related to notability should be written.
(I personally have decided to get less involved in AfDs. Hence this will be my last comment. Hence i won't specially vote here. Do as you please. Admins win!) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting this list, we need to understand how Indian criminal justice system works. Anyone can accuse anyone which could lead to First Information Report (FIR) being filed against some person. But, that FIR first needs to be investigated by either an investigating agency (or even by a private person. See 2G spectrum scam and Subramanian Swamy). After investigation is complete, a chargesheet is filed which is a formal document of accusation including supporting evidence. After this, the court gives opportunity to the accused to defend against the charges and then court applies its own mind and decides whether there is any prima facie case against the accused, If yes, charges are said to be framed against the person, if no, then the chargesheet is quashed at that stage itself. After that, trial begins (if accused pleads not guilty). Finally, after all the arguments, etc the court comes to a conclusion and pronounces the verdict (which could be challenged in superior courts). At each stage, accused can approach higher courts (right up to supreme court) to quash the charges, if they are untrue they would be accordingly quashed. Even after approaching so many courts if someone is not discharged, there is a strong reason to believe that the charges and evidence are credible (which is why courts are proceeding with the case). Based on this, it is not fair to drop all these stages and just include final conviction stage. Plus, they are clearly mentioned as being "charges" and not "conviction". AgniKalpa (talk) 23:20, 30 August 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.
More