Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese


 * 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese

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

This article is a WP:Content fork that duplicates information also located at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. The article provides no new information than what is already on these other pages.  Nancy Heise    talk  11:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Forty-nine people in the archdiocese accused of sexual abuse (from the article ) is notable enough for its own article, regardless of whether the information is mentioned on other pages. This definitely needs to be moved to a better title, though, something that doesn't sound like a screaming headline. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. Doesn't seem notable enough on its own, but is definitely relevant within the context of the larger article. Firestorm  Talk 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there are far too many of them to redirect the individual ones to the general article on cases, which has quite enough general material to deal with. So the question is whether to merge with the article on the diocese.  this article gives more detail. Merging all of this in would probably overbalance the article and be a failure of nPPOV, so I think its best just to keep a summary there, and have this separately.  I don't think we want to go to separate articles on all the individual cases, so combination articles like this are the best compromise solution.DGG (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's excellent summary above, which says it better than I could on my own. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - has reliable sources and too much to put in diocesan or general abuse articles. Springnuts (talk) 19:57, 12 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.