Deletion of List of California public officials charged with crimes

Comment: The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_California_public_officials_charged_with_crimes&oldid=483179872 last version of the full article was not a BLP violation, nor did it violate any policies.  Every individual mentioned had an inline source (I added three to the one person with a cn tag); there is nothing that suggests that that the article violates  or  (almost every entry is cited to a major California daily newspaper--the LA Times, SF Call, SF Chronicle or the San Jose Mercury News--I used three books to cover the final cn problem); and the article does not fail .  There is nothing in the article content or talk that suggests that the article's creator and primary contributor has some kind of bias against politicians in general, or against politicians charged with a crime and subsequently released. It is difficult to provide information about people convicted of crimes without making them sound "bad," but the language used was relatively neutral.  References to various guidelines are not convincing.  just recommends that editors "give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Individual articles about such people were created by others--listing them here is not a violation of this guideline or of any policy.  The criteria even screen out some individuals whose crimes are infractions that have nothing to do with their time in public office. Also note that criminal actions by and corruption of public officials is "notable" beyond what one might suspect based on the number of people involved or the amount of money--look at the biographies of Earl Warren and his memoir, which I cited in Burton Becker.  GeorgeLouis did not find newspaper coverage of this person and his crimes, but it clearly existed at the time of the events and it shows up in every biography of Warren that covers his early carrer as a District Attorney in Alameda County.  Corrupt sheriffs, county supervisors, mayors, councilmembers, and road commissioners are encyclopedic and suitable for inclusion in such a list, although not necessarily an individual article, especially if no other information about them is provided.  There are hundreds of them in California who are clearly encyclopedic, mostly WP "notable," and sufficiently referenced in this list--how would you merge them to a national list? Finally, around half of the 200+ people on the list are dead and no legitimate BLP claim has been made about any of the others still listed.  Here's a current link to Richards and the Lynwood story http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/21/local/me-lynwood21. Editors should work on improving the article, clarifying or refining the selection criteria, and weeding out BLP issues with specific  entries, if there are any. People might also remember to be civil and to assume good faith when responding to the creator and to any other Keep posts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:CRIME)

Comment: And relevant guideline contrary to this is : "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to '''not''' creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: And apologies for the somewhat drastic approach I took to this article - but the topic itself is such an obvious violation of , ,  etc, that it seemed the only appropriate course. Listing non-notable individuals who have been ''convicted'' of crimes is probably a BLP1E violation (taking into account the insignificance of some of the crimes alleged), but this article lists individuals ''acquitted'' of such charges too. In an ideal world, one could go through the article, remove all the acquittals, and all the convictions of non-notable individuals, and reduce the list to a core of significant corrupt Californian public officials - but even then, without a source that said that there was anything notable about the intersection between 'California' and 'crime by public officials', it would look like the breach of  that it is. It is entirely possible that California leads the world in official corruption (though I doubt it), but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum to engage in research to prove it. Without a source that explicitly states that public corruption in California is any more significant than anywhere else, the list can only be seen as political soapboxing, point-scoring, or a random accumulation of primary research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NPOV||WP:OR||WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: A side issue re: sources. Atop the references section is the explanation ''References not on this page are in the articles cited. Access to some newspaper links may require the use of a library card.'' That's a terrific understatement--the balance of references link to the LA or SF library systems, and can not be accessed without a card. One is accustomed to accepting in good faith an article with several sources which can not be easily accessed, or require payment for access. There are 238 cites here, the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers.  offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which can not be easily accessed, but I'm not sure that the guideline anticipated an article with some 200 such cites. Perhaps someone has encountered a similar situation here. Special:Contributions/99.156.65.73|99.156.65.73
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SOURCEACCESS)

Comment: Subject does not appear to meet , any charges of crimes or convictions can be added in a neutral, due weight, manor to the subject's article. Perhaps this can be preserved as a category
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I agree with Andy, Stuart, and Bbb23. Accusations are not generally encyclopedic, and when an accusation (cf conviction) qualifies under  or , a stand alone article would be more appropriate than a list because lists are not necessarily confined to notable individuals. With BLP vios, this article is not encyclopedic; without them, it's not even a list. Individuals actually convicted could most easily have a place at List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLPCRIME)

Comment: per already mentioned concerns re: BLP violations, listing of numerous non-notables, and finally, per , given the author's intent to create an article for editorial purposes. Special:Contributions/99.156.65.73|99.156.65.73
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)