Deletion of List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (2nd nomination)

Comment: impeccably referenced list, and I wouldn't see a NPOV problem even if "List of convicted criminals who played professional sports" was the name. I also do not agree with the OVERCAT argument. Being a convicted criminal is, whether we like the idea or not, a defining characteristic of many notable people. A recorded and sourced conviction does not violate . Further, eliminating lists like this is contrary to  by whitewashing relevant, factual, and sourced information from WP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The guidelines at  state that some lists may be unsuitable for inclusion, and goes on to mention the policy . In that policy in the section DIR criterion 6, it states that ''"'''Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations''', such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon."'' This concept is further extended to categories, particularly with the guideline  in the subsection Trivial Intersection. As sportspeople gaining a criminal conviction does not represent a phenomenon of cultural significance and represents an intersection of two datasets that would otherwise be unrelated, the only logical choice is to delete. Many thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT||WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIR||WP:OVERCAT)

Comment: per Alison. Having been convicted of a crime ''and'' being a professional athlete is not a notable association.  applies on all pages. This has been established in the past. If that wasn't the case then it could be gamed by creating articles like this one. Obviously that isn't going to work. What you need here is evidence that the theme of the page is notable. Simply gathering information and making a list like this isn't enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Since most of the people on this list are not known primarily for their criminal activity, creating a list in which this activity is taken out of context is a violation of our policies on |undue weight and |biographies of living people. The list is also incomplete &mdash; just offhand, I can think of 2 baseball Hall of Famers who pleaded guilty to federal tax-related felonies who are not included in this list. (And no, I'm not going to add them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:BLP)

Comment: as long as it remains fully sourced.  Of course this list only presents the information that these people are criminals, you click on their name to get their full biographies.  I know about , but does a list of best rookies give a balanced view of their careers?  Does the (|featured) list of List of Formula One fatal accidents|F1 fatal accidents give a balanced view that they were generally very good drivers?  Of course not, as that is not what qualified them to the list.  As professional sportspeople are considered (like it or not) rolemodels and get paid accordingly, then information like this are notable to the general public, and lists like this become very useful in determining the truth - and not perpetuating myths
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:FL)