Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country


 * 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 no consensus that this is inherently a WP:BLP violation or WP:COATRACK or whathaveyou. However, there seems to be some considerable duplication over various articles covering this topic, and a broader look at how we cover it might be worthwhile and help solve the concerns of people wanting to delete this article. W.marsh 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E. This afd is a followup to those at Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) and three other American states. Corvus cornix 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh, sure, let's pretend it didn't happen. The worldwide investigation and lawsuits over clerical sex abuse are probably the biggest crisis in the church's history since the Reformation.  Some people live through history without realizing it.  Mandsford 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just was using this page for some research, quite handy. Speciate 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Aspects of this article are encyclopedic, it covers notable public advocacy and Church responses to the crisis in each country, but it's also used as a WP:COATRACK and there are some serious WP:BLP issues with naming of otherwise non-notable individuals, some of whom haven't even been convicted of a crime. If these issues can't be dealt with the article needs to go. -- SiobhanHansa 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOTNEWS is about current events which, whilst they may be verifiable,  are not of historic or encyclopedic importance.  This is quite clearly not the case here.  WP:BLP1E is even less relevent: it is saying that "living people notable only for one event" are "Unlike to warrant ... a separate biography".  This is completely irrelevent to this article (see WP:NNC).  I can see no good argument for deletion here. -- simxp (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)  (Clarification: the article should, of course, be restricted to cases where guilt has been actually established in a court of law; but that's an editing issue.  -- simxp (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete Per the many wikipolicies in WP:NOT that this article violates. Specifically, you can't use Wikipedia as a directory.  Another reason to delete it is that it is a source of  misinformation.  The article is a very incomplete list of sex abuse cases.  Also, there should be no naming of anyone who has not been convicted of a crime for ethical reasons.NancyHeise 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete The items can't be dealt with in an article of this nature, devoted to cases.--Start a new one under as Sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, or something of the sort, discussing the general subject and the public reactions. for those cases which have articles in WP, links can be made or see alsos, rather than try to summarize such matters here. And there could and should, for example, be an article for the situation in Boston, which was particularly noteworthy.Otherwise, probably under the articles forthe dioceses. there are many better ways. DGG (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The opening sentences says ntable. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete On close inspection it's more listings and scandal rag than encyclopedic treatment and the really encyclopedic treatment of the issue is already covered at Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases. WP:BLP issues are bad and unlikely to be avoided if the article remains.  -- SiobhanHansa 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you are right-- and details are already included under dioceses. They should be checked, to make sure we do not inappropriately specific the victims.  DGG (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The title is a POV giveaway as if R-C owned sex abuse. The article seems to be intended to embarrass the listees rather than to inform the readers. Informing the readers is important but needs to be done in a NPOV way. Editors on a vendetta appear to have contributed heavily to this article. As a result, the feel of the article is more tabloid than encylopedic.Student7 12:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: if kept it should be renamed to "List of ... in modern era" not to suggest an overview article about the topic. I suggest to delete it otherwise. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge merge with article this article, and I added main article tag on it for the meantime. Carter | Talk to me 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut the info from that page to make two meaningful shorter pages. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is notable. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am a bit concerned that this article will start a whole new series of entries with every religion or sect. It would be a denial to say that this is not notable, but wikipedia is already a battle ground. May be we should have a new norm in wikipedia on being responsible within reason. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 13:52, 14 October 2007 (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.