List of incarcerated musicians : Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Lists of people ,  and Crime .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I have a hunch that "musician" + "went to prison" is not an especially significant intersection that meets WP:LISTN .  I have not attempted to find out, but I do know that this list does not attempt to prove it.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The nominator cited a violation WP:BLPCRIME , but that policy is about people who have only been accused of a crime, and requires the "innocent until proven guilty" stance.  However, most of the people in this list article have been convicted and are currently in prison, so describing them as such is not a violation of the cited policy.  Exception: the final entry on Superstar Pride should be removed for this reason, as he is awaiting trial and is technically still just accused of the crime.  Otherwise, I'm not so sure the article satisfies WP:NLIST , but I'm undecided on that front for now and will see what other voters think.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doomsdayer520 : I linked the wrong section.  What I meant to link to was WP:BLPCAT which says this Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light).  For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.  Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist.  (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question or issue.)  These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes no difference, because this list article simply describes the people as "incarcerated" which is true and not a matter of false light or reputation.  I could call someone racist and that is a judgmental opinion that can damage their reputation.  But if someone is literally in prison then I can call them "incarcerated" because that's the word for someone who is in prison.  (Again, Superstar Pride at the bottom of the list should be removed.) --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, this list article could possibly be deleted for much simpler reasons as described at WP:NLIST , in which case you could adjust the rationale in your nomination. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The text I included above literally mentions criminals and says that this applies equally to lists.  People who are incarcerated are people who have been charged with crimes.  I don't have any problems with the article being considered for deletion under WP:NLIST either but I think my argument still holds merit.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I disagree that this violates BLPCAT .  Stating that someone is incarcerated is factual, and does not "suggest that" someone has "a poor reputation".  However, I agree with LaundryPizza03 that this likely does not meet LISTN .  Music in prisons is a notable topic, but the fact that musicians are amongst people in the population who get incarcerated is not a phenomenon that has been written about in relevant literature.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This would look better if the lead could be expanded with some prose about the individuals.  It's kind of hard to violate WP:BLPCAT on a list like this, when each person on the list was high-visibility for their arrests, trials and incarceration.  This list merely puts the individuals in one grid/list.  I don't have a problem with this list, or similar lists of high-visibility public figures.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a WP:CROSSCAT as others have already mentioned, but also because of "The following list includes notable musicians who are currently incarcerated." .   There definitely are BLP issues from saying that so-and-so is incarcerated when they no longer are, unless people are fastidiously updating this list, which is not reasonable to expect.   Any kind of "current" list like this shouldn't really exist.   You could convert it to something like "who have ever been incarcerated", but again, there are still CROSSCAT issues.   Side note, everyone, stop using "notable" in article text.   It's Wikipedia jargon that doesn't mean the same thing as the common use of the word.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 15:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, this was mostly my train of thought when I was thinking about what might cause BLP issues and how the cross-categorization  of musician and incarcerated might violate the spirit of WP:BLPCAT .  As far as I can tell you're the first one to bring up CROSSCAT specifically, so thank you for linking that.  People can be incarcerated for a variety of reasons and it just doesn't sit right with me to have a list like this that could easily become coatrack of BLP issues.  There's a decent amount of musicians that are notable enough in the Wikipedia-sense but aren't really public figures and hypothetically could be included in a list like this.  But it's fairly obvious my judgement isn't unanimous right now so it's good this AfD has participation with different perspectives.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete