Talk:Atlantic Institution

If anyone is interested, I have proposed a new Wikiproject concerning prisons here.--Cdogsimmons ([[User talk::::|talk]]) 16:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Many/Most prison articles seem to have a list of newsworthy residents housed at the institution, this edit removed them all simply saying "BLP Issues" but I don't think there were any BLP issues - Justin Bourque is housed here, why is stating that with a cited news reference somehow a BLP issue? New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No indication why any of those people are more notable than the other prisoners housed here... None of them have Wikipedia articles. What you see elsewhere does not indicate best practice. Many of those people had no business being named on Wikipedia... See WP:NPF -- MediaKyle (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Legere and Bourque are both the subject of articles, and NPF doesn't seem to apply here. Further multiples aren't even alive, so invoking BLP is a red herring at best. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a true crime magazine. The section certainly can't go back as it was, although I can see the rationale for adding Legere under history. Anything else is just cruft. I would tread carefully when it comes stuff like this. MediaKyle (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

"It can't go back how it was", there's still zero explanation of why not - Regional Reception Centre (which also housed Legere) has a list of inmates, so does Sing_Sing#Notable_inmates including inmates without Wiki articles so long as they are limited to a single sentence and cited, same with Kingston_Penitentiary#Notable_inmates and functionally every prison. If there's not a policy being violated, then I'll restore the section. If there's a specific inmate you wish not listed, I'm more than happy to oblige - but as it stands, everyone listed was newsworthy even if not worth an encyclopaedia article themselves - just as in other prison wikis. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you won't restore the section, because it was one big BLP violation and half of it was unsourced. It is up to you to gain consensus for this, and I have a feeling it's not going to happen. MediaKyle (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Again I feel like you're straining the ability to Assume Good Faith, "No you won't restore it because you need to gain consensus", technically your removal would need consensus as it borders on vandalism; you would especially need to clarify why you feel the Atlantic Institution should follow different rules than any other prison article - and I've already asked you to stop invoking BLP for dead people, then you switched to claiming notability but I pointed out multiples have their own articles and the others are all cited in news stories as it's a Maximum Security, so you've switched back to claiming BLP. BLP is not a catchall term for deleting all information about living people, a single neutral sentence stating where they are incarcerated and for which reason is normal. It would be a violation if we had unsourced or potentially libelous information, neither is the case here. In the meantime I have put a notice on WikiProject Law and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS... No, my policy-based removal does not require consensus. You need to find consensus to include this material. If you can't see the difference between what was on this article, and what you've pointed out elsewhere, then I think you should stick to islands. MediaKyle (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You cannot say "my policy-based removal" when I have repeatedly asked you to show policy and you have refused; BLP doesn't apply to Sufyan, Legere and others who are dead, and WP:BLPCRIME further details that accusations of criminal activity must be supported by reputable, third-party sources and that unsourced or poorly sourced claims about living people must be removed. Of the twelve you blanket removed, two lacked citations (not added by me) so I've added citations and reworded George Pitt who was convicted but maintained his innocence. BLPCRIME is pretty explicity "until convicted by a court or law...unless a conviction has been secured", etc. Please avoid ad hominem attacks. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! From User_talk:WhisperToMe#c-New_Yathrib_-_Fundy_Historian-20260418134500-Opinions_welcome I was invited into the discussion. From my experience with US prisons, it is public information if a convicted criminal was housed in an institution (many US prisons like ADX Florence and USP Marion have inmate lists too!). Even in places where the imprisonment was wrong/unjust, persons can be listed so long as they are. Articles on British and French prisons have inmate lists too. So long as reliable sources support that a convicted criminal was in a facility, it should be compliant to list them under BLPCrime. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There is so much trivial coverage of prisoners, by what metric do we determine who is included? Those with a Wikipedia article are obviously notable, but for example, is this CTV article enough to add "Calvin Lewis"? That's the same quality of the rest of the sources we have here. I have no problem with this article mentioning Legere but there's no reason to add a bunch of random low-profile criminals who no-one cares about except locals. MediaKyle (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

We might have some common ground here, I can agree on a minimum security prison for example most prisoners are not notable - we shouldn't be publishing drunk drivers, domestic assault, theft under $5000 etc - but THIS, as well as Sing Sing, Kingston Pen, etc - are Maximum Security Prisons - their inmate population is much more notable and commands headlines. In the past 24 hours you've removed hitmen, kingpins, terrorists and serial killers - even the Black Donnellys claiming "not notable". New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

What interests local newspapers and what interests Wikipedia is far different. Just because something or someone was in the news a couple of times does not guarantee its suitability for Wikipedia. MediaKyle (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You're intentionally or otherwise conflating issues here, but you are well aware as a Canadian that CBC and CTV and such are not "local newspapers" - these were cases that made national and often international headlines. Again if there's a specific inmate you don't think should be listed, I'm open to removing one - but on the whole, we list prisoners who have been convicted of serious offences (again we can agree no piddly stuff, drunk driving, assault, theft) - but you haven't named any other than Calvin, who is notable because deaths in-custody that merited national news coverage are relevant to the facility itself. It's a maximum security prison, is there any specific name from the list you'd like left off? Like I said if you're family of Pittman or something and it's causing him grief to be listed, I'm fine removing his name - but on the whole it's silly to be arguing about whether or not convicted terrorists and serial killers and drug kingpins and mafia hitmen should be listed. They always are. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A list of notable inmates seems okay, but they should be notable in Wikipedia terms, not just newsworthy. Wikipedia:ALMAMATER seems relevant here, in particular this guidance about how to detect non-notable names on a list of Notable alumni: "Person does not have their own Wikipedia article, and thus their name is not highlighted blue. Occasionally, someone notable won't have their own Wikipedia article yet, but will be listed in their university article, but that's the exception to the rule." Same thing goes for lists like List of people from Charlotte County, New Brunswick. The lists of notable inmates at ADX Florence and Federal Correctional Institution, Marion, both mentioned earlier in this discussion contain very few names that don't have blue links. So if this criterion (lists of notable people should only include notable people) applies to prisons (and I think it does), and if some of the people currently or formerly incarcerated at this institution are the subjects of Wikipedia articles, they should be on a list of notable inmates. Otherwise, in my opinion, they should not.HazelAB (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Also relevant: WP:CRIME. The bar for criminal notability is quite high. HazelAB (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes and no, the bar for notability to have an article is very high - understandably, especially for people are alive and not serving life sentences,etc - but to be mentioned in an article about the institution is much lower - we aren't speculating on their childhoods, what "he said, she said", etc, just a single sentence saying "X is in this facility after a conviction for Y" and limiting it to things that are serious (this IS a maximum security prison, though for example the inmate whose only crime is mentioned as "threatening a jurist" seems odd and a borderline case) New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The way I read these guidelines is that the bar for notability is high and the bar to be in a list of notable inmates is that the person be notable, ie meet that high bar. How is the bar "to be mentioned in an article" "much lower"? I mean, I suppose you could mention the fact in this article, based on a relevant citation, that some offender was or is imprisoned in this institution. He or she would not be eligible to be in a list of notable inmates though. But what's the point? The article's about the institution. If you wanted to write articles about people whose crimes have been covered in the press and who are now, or were, in the institution, you could do that, and then add them to the list of notable inmates. HazelAB (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, this is more-or-less where I stand on the issue, articulated much nicer than I've been able to. As I said, I have no issue with Allan Legere being included -- I'm less sure about Bourque, as he is not the subject of an article, the 2014 Moncton shootings are. All of the rest are nonstarters. MediaKyle (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

One could do Justin Bourque with a piped link though. I agree the rest are non-notable nonstarters. HazelAB (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact you aren't sure Justin Bourque should be listed, either for your alleged notability concerns or BLP concerns, is troubling - again, you have literally removed serial killers, mafia kingpins and terrorists from prison inmate lists in the past 24 hours...New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I count perpetrators of notable crimes (that is notable to have their own Wikipedia article) as eligible for being put on these lists. For example, each member of the Texas Seven (a collective group of seven men) would be put on the list of inmates at the Polunsky Unit and the Connally Unit. I also count all of Suzanne Basso's accomplices as being eligible to being put on these lists. (In both cases, everyone was convicted!) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)