Category talk:British burglars

Purpose of Category:British people convicted of burglary?

What's the purpose of Category:British people convicted of burglary? Per WP:V (and BLP issues, if living), surely the only people that we can describe as "burglars" would be those convicted of it. If they're not charged and convicted, we can't describe them as burglars. As such, the category is superfluous to this, simpler, one.

It could be argued that Pete Doherty is (although convicted) not a career burglar but rather a celebrity boyfriend and drug consumer. However he is convicted, thus valid for inclusion. I can't think of any case or situation where someone wouldn't be equally relevant to both categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that some criminals (on Wikipedia) are known burglars but are instead tried for a weightier crime that they have committed, such as murder.Hoops gza (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Then we can't call them burglars at all, per WP:V. Really the only source we can credibly use for accusing a crime would be a court conviction (or maybe a police caution).

I see no problem in categorizing a convicted murderous burglar twice, into both convicted murderers and convicted burglars. WP:UNDUE might be a reason not to, if one offence is trivial, but that's a separate issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the category title "convicted of burglary" is verifiable and would seem to be much more defining than "burglars". Since the burglars have almost completely been diffused into "convicted of burglary", perhaps I should finish the diffusion and then we can nominate this category for deletion?Hoops gza (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Whichever you like. I see "British burglars" as a better title name, being more concise, but that's a minor point. My main point is that the two categories are by definition the same (within our restricted scope needing WP:V) and so we shouldn't have two. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)