Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese

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

No evidence of particular notability is given here. Seems like just more piling on, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, see Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese, where there is a keep consensus. Also, this affair is very notable in Ireland, you would know it if you read the Irish newspapers on a regular basis. ADM (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Miami article covers events over a couple of decades. This appears to deal with the fallout from a report required by processes which were put in place and then ignored. If it had caused the processes to be put in place in the first place, I'd agree it was notable enough for an article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: See WP:OTHERSTUFF - you'll have to show that the subject of this article is notable enough in it's own right.
 * Keep. The subject-matter is quite obviously notable, a major scandal involving Church and State - so notable in fact that it has prompted the involvement of the Pope (would you like to tell Benedict that he's made a mistake?) PiCo (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On quite a few counts, yes--but not this one in particular. I don't think papal action necessarily indicates notability in this case, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination - Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.--Vidkun (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Grounds for deletion cited are notability and NOTNEWS. However, notability is satisfied because there has been nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and notnews is satisfied because (to quote notnews), "news coverage goes beyond a single event".  (The events in question include the Sunday Tribune's initial breakage of the story, Sean Sherlock's intervention, the apologies, the Pope's intervention, and the Commission of Inquiry, which all receive separate coverage.) Therefore, no valid reason for deletion survives a serious examination of the subject.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews (is there a procedure for this?). (Transwiki not possible for legal reasons.) Merge/rename ([perhaps as a section in new article Sexual abuse scandal in Ireland) - needs to focus on the wider/historical significance. Pretty well written for WP:NOTNEWS, and even has references at the end instead of inline, Wikinews-style. As to S Marshall's second point: I'd say these are all aspects of one event, not separate, unrelated events. NB: Classic sign A of One News Event: no incoming links from other WP articles. (I realise the article is only a week old, but in this case I don't see much potential for linking either; it hardly merits a footnote in Catholic sex abuse cases.) Classic sign B of One News Event: obvious parent (Sexual abuse scandal in Ireland or similar) doesn't exist. Rd232 talk 22:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that if it's one event with several aspects, then those aspects are remarkably widely-separated in time. I suppose it's a tenable point of view that this is "one event" that spans several months, but I should think that stretches the meaning of "one event" rather too far.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically a series of related events comprises an episode. (The distinction between an event and an episode canbe argued endlessly, it's basically a matter of analytical convenience.) One Episode is still WP:NOT for the details of that episode. It should be included only if and to the extent that the episode casts light on the broader issue. Rd232 talk 22:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, improve substantially and perhaps rename. The article was no sooner begun than it was nominated for deletion. Lots of points missing such as this, this and doesn't the "walking priest" himself deserve some sort of mention? The Augustinian cleric launched the atonement walk after what he described as "the inexcusable" Diocese of Cloyne abuse allegations. He said he found these to be "the lowest ebb" of a sad, tragic story for the Church.", "Hundreds of supporters of a protesting priest will cheer his arrival in the Pro-Cathedral today on the final leg of his marathon 'atonement' walk from Cork to Dublin.", "Fr Michael also confirmed that he had had a number of calls from victims of abuse who were interested in what he was doing and the message he was promoting. There is certainly no shortage of sources if this were handled in the correct way. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep This is now part of history as are the other articles in the parent category. Certainly notable.  Needs improvment? Then improve it. Hmains (talk) 04:06, 22 April 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.