Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic 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. Nja 247 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article duplicates material already presented in other articles; material in this article is too detailed; Wikipedia is not a police blotter Richard (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Article was created by User:ADM in an attempt to move excessive detail out of Catholic sex abuse cases. ADM moved material to this article and then deleted it from Catholic sex abuse cases. User:Kasaalan subsequently reverted the deletion from Catholic sex abuse cases thus creating a content fork in which the same material is presented both in this article and in Catholic sex abuse cases. Kasaalan felt that the wholesale deletion from Catholic sex abuse cases was too radical. I kind of agree with Kasaalan on this although we disagree on how much material should be kept in Catholic sex abuse cases and how much should be moved to subsidiary articles.
 * Rationale for deleting this article

In addition, ADM may not have been aware of the article titled Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country which includes most of this material.

Moreover, there are articles about the sexual abuse scandal in specific countries. These are:


 * Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States
 * Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Australia
 * Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland
 * Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Canada

The material in this article is primarily in Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States but any details cases outside the U.S. could be handled in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country or in one of the above country articles.

Also, consider the existence of these articles about the sexual abuse scandal in specific dioceses:


 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Honolulu
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Orange
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Palm Beach
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Portland


 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin
 * Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne

In a nutshell, there is a hierarchical structure of articles with Catholic sex abuse cases at the top and then descending to the country and diocese level. All the material in this article could be moved to one or more of the articles in this hierarchy.

I also am skeptical that a reader would want to focus specifically on "Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases" outside the context of the sexual abuse scandal either as a whole or in a specific country or diocese.

To me, this article winds up being a more or less arbitrary collection of information that does not provide the appropriate context for the reader.

Even if this article is deleted, there will still be more cleanup work to do on the main article (Catholic sex abuse cases) and its subsidiary articles. Deleting this article is just the first step in the cleanup process.

--Richard (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep : I strongly disagree with that. The Catholic sex abuse cases article is way too large and should be scrapped by at least 90 %. The rest ought to be put in those other entries. There is a good reason for the category on the subject, it makes the avaiblable content much  more readable. The current entry is not easily readable and looks a lot like a thrashy notebook. ADM (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep : Agree. Sturunner (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep appropriate summary article. DGG (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content is notable, verifiable, and useful for the encyclopedia.  Often with complex topics, there are summaries and lists that cross-reference and expand on multiple topic pages. The focus of this particular page provides relevant and strongly-sourced detail about a clearly defined segment of the topic group.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--providing an easy source for our customer.--Buster7 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no purpose in having dozens of different articles all repeating the same information.  Xan  dar   22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per all above 'keeps'--141.156.151.15 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2009 (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.