Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa)


 * 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 delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violate WP:NOTNEWS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. STORMTRACKER   94  20:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am changing my vote to delete after reading wikipolicies on WP:NOT
 * Comment - Then we should probably get rid of those subpages, too. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and we don't need to go into minor detail about every teacher ever arrested for a sex crime. FCYTravis 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article in question is a compendium of newspaper clippings, not an encyclopedia piece. FCYTravis 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." From WP:NOT Djgranados 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Violation of WP:NOT and horribly implications for WP:BLP.-- SiobhanHansa 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment There are also several similar lists: Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Florida), Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts), Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Texas), Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. Can these be added to this AfD at this stage or do we need to start another?  -- SiobhanHansa 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They should probably be on a second AfD, though grouped together. It's bad form to change AfD's while in progress. Quatloo 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per SORMTRACKER94 and NASCAR Fan24. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am working on AfDs for a few of the articles mentioned by SiobhanHansa. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Not encyclopedic. --Rtphokie 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Probably WP:BLP and most certainly WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK violations. 1of3 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty much the same stuff as List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Commentjonathan states above that he is working on AfDs for a few of the articles listed in SiobhanHansa's comment above. I just checked his contributions list and the only ones he is proposing for deletion are the sex abuse cases in American Public Schools.  Why wouldn't you or any of these other people opposed to the Public Schools list be working on AfDs for the Catholic Church list?  I have provided evidence in the disputed article's introductory paragraph that the problem is just as bad or worse in American Public Schools, yet none of you sees any problem with eliminating just the wikipages on American Schools and not the Catholic Church?  What does that say about the people commenting on this page? Bias? It looks that way to me.NancyHeise 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm working on AfDs for the two Catholic articles - but I don't intend posting them until Monday. -- SiobhanHansa 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article describes notable and referenced cases.Biophys 23:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Quatloo 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article has been anonymized. The content addresses an issue whether abuse in education is underreported or reported correctly. There are a lot of adherents on both sides. It does not do original research however. All there is is the quantity or lack of same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a true example f an indiscriminate list, selecting a few cases for attention. I have no bias about it--I would eliminate all articles of this sort, as evasions of BLP and N. Articles about sex abuse in iowa schools would make sense if they talked about the legal and pubic opinion issues. DGG (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion.  Corvus cornix 22:12, 8 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.