Deletion of List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes

Comment: politicians, especially state-level, are by their nature not "low profile individuals" and the right to be forgotten does not apply to them. Most are blue-linked entries and the list appears to be well sourced. I think the case for removing nn local-level politicians (i.e. a county comissioner without an article) could be made on the talk page. I would support removal of those who meet the two criteria: a. they do not have articles, and b. do not meet . If such discussion commenses post closure (if this article is kept), I would be happy to be pinged about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Wikipedia offers no "right to be forgotten". All of the state and local politicians listed here are included because they have been convicted of crimes, accompanied by the reliable and verifiable sources to back up the claims. Barring the ability to wipe these sources off the face of the Earth, the ability to support these claims will exist as infinitum.{{pb}}From a matter of public policy, people hold elected officials up to a higher standard than they do gardeners or even journalists. No one claims that all politicians are crooks, but some are. The effort to liken this to "List of African Americans convicted of crime" is patently absurd.{{pb}}The list *is* incomplete. Wikipedia is fine with that. California has 40 million residents and Los Angeles about 4 million; New York (state)|New York has about 20 million and New York City about 8.5 million. List of people from California and List of people from Los Angeles are both incomplete, falling far short of the list under consideration; same with List of people from New York (state) and List of people from New York City (though I will note that in both cases, the city articles counter-intuitively and against all logic have more entries than the state lists). There are far fewer politicians in the United States since its formation than the number of people in either city or state; the number of convicted state and local politicians is orders of magnitude smaller than the pool of people in any of these places and is unlikely to become unmanageable in the years ahead. Should this list get too large, creating sub-lists by state would be the method to follow, emulating the rather logical approach to explain why there is no List of people from the United States.{{pb}}Per , this is exactly the kind of topic that is appropriate for a standalone list and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&ei=h3xWWqCiL8aF_QbwobLwDw&q=political+corruption+united+states&oq=political+corruption+united+states&gs_l=psy-ab.3.o..6190.23137.0.23374.63.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..63.0.0.0...0.wV_3zwPEh0c this search shows more than a handful of books devoted to the topic; similar searches of newspaper articles and scholarly works also turn up sources by the thousands.{{pb}}Appeals to  and  are similarly specious. This is an article that needs to be retained and -- sadly -- expanded
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NOT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: nbsp; Just seems to have the effect of disparaging people, and there is not a single link in the lede.&nbsp; So the group is itself someone's WP:OR, while erifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources says that "Any exceptional claim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources."&nbsp; So fails WP:LISTN exceptionally.&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per pretty much everything Sandstein says.  is not a primary principle, and has a lesser rank than , and once again I return to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Basic human dignity|the ARBCOM ruling of yore that "Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects." Really, most appeals to  ought to be a signal to those making the appeal to get a conscience/morals tune-up. And the fact that people have spent a lot of time on this says only that (a) too many people should have known better, and that (b) this should have been deleted sooner
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:BLP||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: Per  and lack of EU (or Argentine) jurisdiction over Wikipedia. The list's inclusion criteria at present states {{tq| Not everyone who works in government is a politician save those who meet the requirements of Notability in the English Wikipedia. Private citizens, businessmen and family should not be included, unless they relate to the crime as co-defendants.}} so all those mentioned are '''in any event''' eligible notability wise, , for a Wikipedia article. A list of American NPOL eligible politicians intersected by crime conviction is not unmanageable in size. Nom's comment of "{{tq|down to every proverbial village dogcatcher convicted}}" is addressed by the list inclusion criteria of meeting NPOL which at present does not include dogcatchers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:NPOL)

Comment: Per  and the amount of work that so many editors have made
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: I quote from  - ''The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)