Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  snowball delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:List of Muslim sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom


This draft blames an entire community (British muslims) for the crimes of individuals. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR, WP:COATRACK, or at least WP:TNT. If such a specific and contentious topic is to be written, it needs to start from quality sources directly covering this specific topic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Response: It is NOT original research if you bothered to look at the sources. Can you please specify what in the article seems to you as original research? Also, linking to non-official Wikipedia policies aka essays such as WP:COATRACK, or at least WP:TNT is not helpful. — KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sources give direct coverage of lists of sex rings? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of them are not even solely Muslim, so yes OR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: I have added more sources. Hope they are helpful and address your concerns around OR. — KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, agreed with all the above. I mean look at the creators contributions. They give no room for WP:AGF. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: Yes, please do look into my contributions. This is my first and only article till now. I am not sure what are you trying to insinuate. Also, it's ironical that you say this article gives no room for WP:AGF. Do you understand what "Assume Good Faith" means? You are pointing to my contribution history as if it is something to be derided. You are the one assuming bad faith. Weird how that works? —KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As the creator of the list of let me respond to the submitter's poor reason for deletion.


 * Roger (Dodger67) : "This draft blames an entire community (British muslims) for the crimes of individuals."


 * Response: No, it does not blame an entire community. This is a false claim altogether. How are you getting this impression?


 * To sum matters, all I see till now are veiled attempts at censorship. I sincerely hope consensus to delete this article is not based on votes. Thank you! -- KarmaChameleon (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as insufficient to meet WP:BLP. As I assume large amounts of the victims and perpetrators are living people, we must make absolutely sure this draft is very well-cited to excellent in-line sources. (and for the record, that's policy, and it's so important it's in the lead section) The draft in its current state simply does not cut it. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean you can write about whatever you like anywhere without attention to detail and accuracy. The Home Affairs Committee reports are absolutely reliable sources, but I would much prefer we focused on improving the existing articles we have on these related topics. (For example: the Rochdale article does not have an in-line reliable citation for the sentences received by the perpetrators) It is incorrect to take the isolated incidents in Rochdale and Oxford and synthesise that they happen everywhere, which the impression this article may give the reader. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: Sorry to break this to you but this page is not a BLP. Thank you, KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Deletete just because a sex ring involves people from Muslim-majority ethnic backgrounds, does not make it, via the wonders of OR/SYNTH, a "Muslim sex ring." Some of these rings even had decidedly non-Muslim members (like Czechs). Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: Czechs can be Muslims. Islam is a relgion. Czech is a nationality. Thank you, KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Quite apart from the fact that some of these rings had non-Muslim members, one of the articles even goes on to point out that less than a third of recent paedophile rings in the UK involved (mostly) Muslim involvees, which leads straight to the point that - why does this article exist? Surely the user would first have also created articles covering the other 67% of cases.  I wonder why they didn't?  Meanwhile, the very existence of this link in the article (which I am about to remove) means that this needs not to exist. Edit: and this one, which is from pamelageller.com with all that suggests. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: I am not sure what that statistic is supposed to do with this case? I must appreciate how wonderfully you have used the whataboutism fallacy. Well done! Also, in response to your comment "Surely the user would first have also created articles covering the other 67% of cases. I wonder why they didn't?" — it is not my duty to create the article. If you want to, please feel to do so.  Thank you, KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Which article contains this Statistic? Thanks. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring. Sorry, it's "Asian", not "Muslim", but the point is the same. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:SYNTH Article cherry-picks crimes to suggest conclusions. I can’t think of a purpose for the article other than to smear a group of people. Objective3000 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Obvious WP:COATRACK is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: Thanks for linking to a non-policy essay. It was very helpful. KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete while we could have an article on List of sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom, I don't see the need for this specific article unless we had secondary sources reporting a widespread problem of specifically "Muslim sex abuse rings".  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: Agreed, we could have an article on List of sex abuse rings in the United Kingdom. KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wow, the sole contribution of an editor ostensibly new but showing some sophistication in his argument, which does nothing more than to link to and highlight a series of similar articles that show similarities of authorhsip, and all emphasizing either British Pakistani men, or Muslims. However "true" the author claims all this is, it is blatant propagandizing by veiled figures with ulterior motives, not at all in good faith, that doesn't so much inform as inflame.  As Justice Holmes famously said, free speech does not protect "Shouting fire in a crowded theater", which seems to be the intent here.  Yes, some kind of "censorship" is appropriate here. Though I can think of one reason for retention in some form: as a convenient link to certain articles with an egregiously bad, covert point-of-view. Even better, out the author; these kinds of machinations need to be exposed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: "Yes, some kind of "censorship" is appropriate here" - Sorry, I do not see why censorship is required. There are no veiled ulterior motives only sexual abuse by men of a certain religious community KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOR, WP:COATRACK. Really?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: Not original research. Really. —KarmaChameleon (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is as The Roma (for example) are not Muslims, and the Czechs are not identified as such. So yes you make a lot of assumption that child abuser rings ere all Muslim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The cases and religion
 * Rotherham, Muslim
 * Rochdale, Muslim
 * Second Rochdale case, not all Muslim
 * Banbury, hard to tell but some may not be Muslim.
 * Bristol, muslim
 * Derby, not all Muslim
 * So in about the first half of your list, about half are "Muslim rape gangs" (assuming that if you have a muslin sounding name you are a Muslim). So yes it is OR as you are making assumptions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per others above. Additionally, this shouldn't even be in mainspace to begin with.  Besides the fact that a "surprising or apparently important" claim like this should only be given via multiple high-quality reliable sources, the draft as currently written consists entirely of poorly sourced contentious claims that are, at least arguably, about living people and thus subject to immediate removal without discussion.  Fact checker _ at your service  19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.