Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse cases


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   keep. The "delete" arguments are particularly weak. Calling an article a POVFORK is not helpful unless one also explains what particular (non-neutral) POV this article is supposed to further. The substantial question is whether this topic should be the subject of a spin-off subarticle, and none of the "delete" opinions cite a policy or guideline (such as original research, notability or verifiability) to explain why it should not. Absent an understandable argument for deletion, the article is not deleted. That's without prejudice to any editorial action such as rename, restructure or merge as editorial consensus may deem proper.  Sandstein  20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases (current title)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is based on a word-for-word copy of Scouting_sex_abuse_cases, thus amounts to a POVFORK. New material should be merged with pre-existing article on the same subject. ►  Belch fire - TALK 01:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable topic but Scouting_sex_abuse_cases should be reduced to a summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now done - again, but with a more severe cull. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm familiar with this. Part of an hour-by-hour frenzy of creating new articles that duplicate existing ones, attempts to gut the article that it duplicated to try to make the fork fly and rename the new one to try to make the fork fly etc. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is part of the inevitable growth of WP that large articles are eventually split into smaller new ones. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * North, the new subarticle was renamed because you said you wanted it renamed. Don't suggest something, have us say okay, and then turn around and cite that agreement as a sign that we're acting in bad faith. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The name changes about once per hour. As of my writing the title was problematic....with the "and" in it) it is about (implies) the connection between the national organization and sex abuse cases or the national organization in conjunction with those cases.     This has immense lack-of-scope, POV, and wp:notability problems.  The title that I suggested had none of those problems. Then it went through two more changes and the version of the minute "Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases" looks good.  But lets wait 5 minutes and see if it changes again. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Scouting has 30 million kids in 161 different nations, yet the Scouting_sex_abuse_cases page spends 10,000 characters (more than half of article) focused on just one single scouting organization out of thousands: the Boy Scouts of America.   Either we split that BSA-stuff off into a subarticle, per WP:SUMMARY, or we risk sending the message that 50% of the world's scouting-related sex abuse is caused by just one organization, the BSA--  an implication that is patently false and is, to my eyes, the definition of UNDUE weight.   --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the perverse insistence on covering each and every case of abuse that creates undue weight in the original article. Observers should note that this editor's initial move was to expand the section Boy_Scouts_of_America, despite the existence of Scouting sex abuse cases, and didn't try to create the nominated article until his changes there were rejected by the community.  Again... a classic POVFORK.  ►  Belch fire - TALK  02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should not cover each and every case but it is a notable topic therefore it warrans its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Belchfire, you're criticizing me for listening to your advice. I added it to the top level, you felt it was UNDUE, and I listened and agreed.   Perhaps you have some WP:COI/WP:OWN issues going here, but demonizing me for trying to help doesn't help us improve the wiki.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You could just cut it back in the original article. -- No  unique  names  05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete pov fork -- No unique  names  05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a WP:SPLIT rather than a WP:CFORK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a split when it is done specifically in response to content being rejected. Read the description here, which outlines exactly what happened in this case.  The editor who created this article couldn't get his material inserted where he wanted it, so he started a new article just to highlight his POV-cruft.  Trouble is, the new article duplicates the scope of an existing article.  That's a POVFORK no matter how you spin it.  ►  Belch fire - TALK  08:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very negative reading of motives, Belchfire. I added some things to the main page, someone rved it as UNDUE weight on the main page, so I went to work on the subarticle.   The first thing I noticed was that the sub-article needed a split because 1 nation took up half the article.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SPADE. Oh, and WP:DUCK, too. ►  Belch fire - TALK  09:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now look here dragon breath! (just wanted to say that...) For fear of invoking the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument we often split articles of this type. We have got categories full of the stuff. See Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country. It is inevitable that we have ones for scouting as well. I have yet to go through to see how this whole thing erupted but any POV material can be sorted out even with two separate articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or re-merge. Seems to be a subarticle of two different articles; Boy Scouts of America and Scouting sex abuse cases.  Normally, it would be a good thing to split out a common section; but this case is anything but normal.  It does seem to be a consequence of an attempt to include the list of all such cases in Wikipedia, making the section too large to be included in either parent article.  My suggestion would be to restore the original material back into whichever parent it was started from, and create a new article List of Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases.  It shouldn't be precisely this one, but I'm not sure delete would really be appropriate.  Re-merge and Rename?   In any case, I don't think it's a WP:POVFORK.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with subarticles. Given that thare are at least two articles - Boy Scouts of America and Scouting sex abuse cases - that are related is another reason to take the intersecting info off to another page. And don't get me started on a "List of ..." article. We need prose - not endless lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought is as yours-- put the prose in the prose BSA article, put the list in the generic scouting abuse list. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if we are on the same page (or the same paragraph). What I want is that the Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse cases (which I want to have named as Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse) is everything about the topic, including the stats, the preventaive measures and the notable individual cases. Boy Scouts of America and Scouting sex abuse cases have a WP:SUMMARY. That is how is done with these situations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you.  Scouting sex abuse cases is just so awkward at present, when all the nations have no prose and the US has so much.  It screams for a split. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is often the case that the US stuff overwhelms an article and is the first that needs splitting. Part of the systemic bias in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The content in this article is long enough and notable enough to justify a different article. I don't see how it's a POVFORK. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The title of the minute (Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases) is much improved but no longer matches the title above. The title with the "and" in it is worded  to be about / imply the/a connection between the national organization and sex abuse cases or the national organization in conjunction with those cases. This has immense lack-of-scope, POV, and wp:notability and POV fork problems. The current title without the "and" solves those problems.  I am going to strike my "delete" recommendation and go into a "wait and see" mode to see if it changes again. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant degree of secondary source coverage, not to mention noteworthy, educational, and encyclopedic value is quite high. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (See my posts above) The less problematic title (which no longer matches the title of this AFD) seems to have stabilized and is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO AND A CONDITION OF MY RECOMMENDATION With the "and" in there my recommendation would be a strong "delete".  I have a feeling that this article would go badly if kept, becoming a POV coatrack.  But I think that it's existence (only under the amended title as it is right now) is logical and correct in all respects. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked and it's already going badly. A single-editor article being spun in a POV direction.  But I still stay with my "week keep".


 * Delete - Severe overweight when random scandals overtke the articles they spawn from. Call for an airstrike, delete all of them and cover it there.  The title also is not clear that the Boy Scouts were victims.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.