Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am listing this article at the request of an individual affiliated with this article. (OTRS Ticket # 2013120310008387) He/She is stating, "This is a private court case that happened many years ago and is causing me a great deal of stress." The individual is requesting that the article be deleted on the grounds of his or her concerns of privacy. Mike V •  Talk  19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This scandal was the subject of newspaper headlines in the UK at the time. Its notability is evidenced by the references in the article. An individual named in the article asked for it to be deleted because a Google search for their name came up with the article, and they did not want to be associated with the scandal. They wisely did not specify their name in their request, at the Wikipedia Help Desk. I guessed which of the names in the article was meant, judged it unimportant to the article, and deleted it. So, if I guessed right, the reason for deleting this article about a notable topic has been largely removed (though unfortunately Google appears not yet to have noticed the deletion, and still lists the WP article when the person's name is searched for). Of course I may have guessed wrong. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Update. Google has caught up. A Google search no longer finds the Wikipedia article – though it does find a mirror of it. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have every sympathy for anyone involved in this shocking case but it is both inherently notable and indeed important. There may be a case for amending or removing parts of the article per WP:BLP and it would certainly be a courtesy, if not a requirement, to avoid using individual's names but there is no case for a wholesale deletion. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the article on the ramifications of the case while ensuring all WP:BLP material is excised and remains so. A notable case, I even have one of the books about it on my bookshelves. AllyD (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A major event, subject of books, had a significant impact on British child protection and social work, and still very much not forgotten. (Note it's often referred to as the Orkney child sex abuse scandal.) It's sad that someone should find the existence of this article disturbing (the article shouldn't identify any victims, and now doesn't), but it's an event of sufficient historical importance that keeping it is essential. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2013 (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.