Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silentlambs


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Silentlambs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •   )

Issue: Proposed Deletion of Silentlambs Article.

Reason: Article is Biased, slanted, POV in favor of SL

This article has been since I first saw it biased, POV and Anti-JW and has not been updated with any other info to balance it out. 2 citations are from the SL site itself(biased, anti-JW) and one AP article(which I believe leans toward SL even though it tried[weakly] to appear neutral). Andy5421 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Andy5421 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Per reason above and previous comments at article's Talk page. The handling of JW child sex abuse cases is dealt with at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse; that article could briefly mention the SilentLambs organization. -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - See last response to Yappy2bhere below.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. --Natural (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with the above statements by Jeffro77--Natural (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. (WP:V). So your job as editors is not to claim the article has 'false claims', but to ensure there are published references supporting the statements. In addition, the article is not "about a web site", but about an organization that protects children. The article is not claiming that child abuse is "more prevalent than in other religions", so don't create false charges. Finally, i want to bring to your attention that user "Naturalpsychology" is a single-purpose user, who openly states that he is dedicated counteract articles critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So find a "reliable source".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This organization also seems to fail Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I already added 10 additional references. Besides, Silentlambs was featured in several TV programs around the world, such as:
 * USA/ NBC Dateline
 * CNN/Connie Chung
 * UK BBC/Panorama-Suffer The Little Children
 * Australia/Sunday Program-Silent Witnesses
 * German Program/WDR-The End of Silence
 * Denmark Program/DTV2-Silent Children
 * German Program-Protecting the Perpetrator Comes First
 * Slovenia Program-POPTV,
 * plus several TV news stories/reports. You can access all of the above documentaries here. BatteryIncluded --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of those references are from the SilentLambs site itself - these are not reliable secondary sources. Some of the references don't even mention SilentLambs or make passing mention of it, but are not about the SilentLambs organization. The point here is not whether the JW handling of sex abuse cases is a notable issue (which is covered elsewhere as stated above), but whether SilentLambs is notable enough to warrant its own article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Disingenuous. Two of eleven references are from the SilentLambs site. The three BBC articles don't discuss the organization but link to it as a resource. Evidently SilentLambs is as notable as the scandal, and as you point out, the scandal satisfies WP:Notability guidelines. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the scandal does satisfy notability guidelines. That is why it has its own article Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. The Notability guideline states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It is the scandal that is the subject of media attention. SilentLambs being credited as a resource in those articles does not satisfy notability of the organisation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google news reveals dozens of reliable sources for this subject, for example this 2002 article in Wired: and this one in The New York Times. Pburka (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The searching by Pburka is convincing. The organization has received widespread, national coverage. If someone were to add all those additional links to the page, it would become instantly, obviously verified and notable. If some people (like the nominator) feel the article is not neutral in its tone, that can be fixed by editing, but we can't suppress all mention of a verified, notable organization just because we don't like its viewpoint. And "being biased" is not one of the reasons for deletion. Per WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." BTW any editing which is introduced for balance has to be properly sourced. Argument, personal opinion, blog comments, etc. are not adequate sourcing and not acceptable as content. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * SilentLambs received a spate of media attention from late 2002 to early 2003 as the story was distributed between media outlets. The scandal of JW handling of abuse is indeed important, and it has its own article - Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The organization had a spate of media attention in 2002-2003- Jeffro
 * Now you changed your argument that that it was notable, but it is no more? You have failed repeatedly to substanciate your oposition and you keep changing your arguments when proven wrong ...your swings are giving me wiplash. Just be proactive and say what is your real motive against this article. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument has not changed. The issue of JW handling of abuse cases is notable, and SilentLambs was mentioned in relation to those cases, with a flurry of media attention in 2002-3. I have already indicated other issues with disingenuous reporting on the SilentLambs website, with links for examples provided below.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid reason to delete.  Subject is notable.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is not biased. Article is objective.  The purpose of the article is to discuss clergy's attempts to silence abuse victims.  As we would expect, the person who propses this article be deleted is attempting to silence abuse victims. • rebel8 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2010
 * The claim that "the person who propses this article be deleted is attempting to silence abuse victims" is a plain violation of WP:AGF and a disingenuous appeal to sentiment. The subject of JW handling of abuse is indeed notable, and is covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. A summary of SilentLambs there would be sufficient.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand the argument that this page should be deleted and merged into the other page. This page is not about Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse; it's about a notable, verified ORGANIZATION - one which has JWs and sex abuse as its mission. Would you suggest deleting the Cancer Society article because there is already an article about cancer? Would you propose merging the ACLU page into an article about civil liberties? Should all church articles be merged into the general topic Christianity? The organization itself is what is notable, and it's what the page is about. It's not just a second page about the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The organization had a spate of media attention in 2002-2003, and brief mentions in the media since, which have achieved some good in drawing attention to the JW's policies. However the primary activities of the organization appear to be sensationalist in nature, such as implying that the number of pedophiles among JWs is a higher proportion to the rest of society, or reporting stories of abusers as JWs, sometimes with no evidence that the offenders were even JWs other than anonymous hearsay (e.g. http://www.silentlambs.org/cancino.htm), inappropriately comparing the number of JW abusers generally with abusers among clergy in other religions (http://www.silentlambs.org/answers/23720.cfm), or implying that abuse and murder is particularly common among JWs (e.g. Link on site's home page: "Another JW Father Murders Children?"). Wikipedia should not encourage sensationalism. When the sensationalism is removed, there is not a great deal of actual content to present about the organization, and for that reason the important information should be merged into the other article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The analogy about the Cancer Society is poor. A more accurate analogy would be an article about a website that makes sensationalist claims about some specific organization causing cancer.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter for purposes of this discussion whether the organization's activities are sensationalistic, or whether it has done any good or continues to do so, or whether it has misrepresented the facts in the past or continues to do so, or whether it has implied what it cannot prove. Those are all important aspects of the organization which should be included in the article so far as they can be supported with reliable sources, but they are irrelevant to deciding whether an article on the organization is a significant addition to WP. The standard for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources. It is not the moral or ethical fiber of the subject, nor its utility to its cause, nor the potential good to society of shunning the subject. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept that, and since there is fairly broad consensus to Keep, it hardly matters. The article has improved since the AfD was raised, and I will keep watch on it to prevent sensationalism from taking over the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, merging a small group into a larger one is an established policy tactic for managing dissent. The smaller group is easily marginalized once it's been absorbed by equating the importance of its interests relative to those of the overall group with its relatively small membership within the group. In this instance, merging this article with the other would permit additional detail about the organization to be excluded on the grounds that it contributes little to the overall merged article. By preventing the topic from expanding while paring away, say, biased content, the topic can be reduced to an offhand remark within the larger article. (Public policy 101 - in my town we play politics without pads, Bubba.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yappy, I realize that would be the effect of "merging" the article: to minimize or blunt the message. But aside from suppressing the viewpoint, the "merge" suggestion makes no sense from a Wikipedia standpoint. The organization is notable in itself, as established by normal Wikipedia criteria. It is not simply synonymous with its cause. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has been rewritten since AfD nomination, a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society added and sufficient citations of sources to confirm notability also supplied. LTSally (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are now enough secondary sources to show notability. -- Neil N   talk to me  16:42, 7 February 2010 (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.