Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clergy abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. The article flagrantly violates WP:NOR. The page on the history of Clergy Sexual abuse covers the topic more than well enough. The argument for keeping this article fails to look at policy, argument for deletion is slightly stronger, and yes, I do anticipate a WP:DRV. Yanksox 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clergy abuse

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Fork, linkfarm, author is a single-purpose account with an axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this is a POV fork? Is it because you think that clergy abuse is primarily related to Catholic priests and that any attempt to document abuse outside that scandal is POV? --Richard 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sexual abuse as a sociological notion does not exist in clergy and non-clergy subflavors. Events, such as the Catholic sex-abuse controversy, merit their own articles for having been covered by the media, and individual confirmed/prosecuted molestors do as well, but this article was not about any specific events. At the time of nomination the article existed as a "clergy" fork of sexual abuse with a fat linkfarm at the bottom. Indefblocked users DinaTamar (talk · contribs) and Ruth Celeste (talk · contribs), who wrote it, also heavily edited The Awareness Center, Inc. (as did many of their other socks) and committed several grievous BLP violations against rabbis (which is how I discovered their nefarious deeds, since I have half the rabbis watchlisted). This article is a fork and part of a concentrated effort of promotion and wiki-besmirching w/o evidence. - crz crztalk 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Now, I understand the context and motivation for your original AFD nomination. I also get the point that "Sexual abuse by clergy" is not necessarily much different from "Sexual abuse by people in positions of authority" from a sociological point of view.
However, due to the Roman Catholic sexual abuse cases, there has been some focus on this question in the popular media and in religious organizations. In essence, people naturally asked "Is this phenomenon limited to the Roman Catholics?". Yes, it's true that there was a POV desire on the part of some Roman Catholics to say "No, it's not." And there was probably a POV desire on the part of some Protestants and Jews to say "Yes, it is". The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. It's not just a question of whether sexual abuse has occurred in non-Catholic religious organizations. The key problem that the Catholics had to grapple with was a willful organizational tolerance and cover-up of the sexual abuse across a major portion of the U.S. Catholic church.
The current article is much changed from the one that you nominated. However, it DOES treat "Sexual abuse by clergy" as a topic separate from "Sexual abuse by persons in positions of authority". I would like to hear your opinion on whether it would be encyclopedice to have an article such as the current revision under the title of "Sexual abuse by clergy" or "Sexual abuse in religious organizations". --Richard 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant POV original research.--Húsönd 14:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Blank The subject itself is notable enough, but I can agree this page is problematic. Is there an option for a redirect? FrozenPurpleCube 20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No. This is a POV fork of Sexual abuse. A redirect would be unhelpful. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't know about where it's a fork from, but I think it's likely that some people are going to search for clergy abuse, and I feel it'd be more helpful to have this point somewhere, even if I'm not sure where would be the best choice. I do think there is some potential for an article though, given that it is a fairly notable subject. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Roman Catholic sex abuse cases is a notable subject, clergy abuse is a POV fork and a linkfarm. - CrazyRussiantalk/email 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, but directly linking to that article might run into the problems mentioned below. Still, I don't think it's completely out of line. Unless there's actual articles on sexual abuse in other churches anyway...in which case maybe a disambig would serve. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to it's original article. JASpencer 22:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or possibly redirect to sexual abuse. Though users who search for "clergy abuse" are probably most likely to be looking for Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, it would be highly POV to redirect there, implying that abusive clerics tend to be Roman Catholics. Note also Category:Clergy abuse which I assume is part of the same fork (and should go for the same reasons), but its history seems to have disappeared. Henning Makholm 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I saw the cat. All from the same user. The cat makes a little more sense actually, even though some things included there earlier were frivolous. Developing... - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly POV original research. Furthermore this article has no citation to support its argument and also falls under WP:NEO not to mention Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary which would be enough grounds to delete the article in the first place. It's a slang definition to summarize. Mkdw 05:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR WP:POVFORK. Sandstein 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand I would even say "strong keep" except this article is so light on content that I can understand why it was nom'ed for deletion. The topic is encyclopedic and important. It is not just a POV fork of Sexual abuse but a major subtopic, especially in light of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. What's needed is a more in-depth discussion of why clergy abuse is a special case of more general sex abuse. --Richard 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, O.R. (stemming from a lack of reliable sources), POV fork. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is in the news frequently and has been for many years. I added to the talk page for the article a bibliography of 19 appearances of the term I found in a search of the New York Times back to the 1990s and the Washington Post for the past few months. "Clergy abuse" appears to be a regularly used term to refer to sexual abuse of minors by clergy, so hardly OR, and quite notable. Editing should be used to correct anything POV. (edited)Edison 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The phrase is notable enough and receives over 4 million Google hits. metaspheres 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — per Edison. Dionyseus 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has been dramatically improved since the AFD began. Adding citations would be a good further step. This is definitely a legitimate topic, and the new version is not a WP:POVFORK. Still an unbalanced article as it doesn't yet have sections on abuse of confession (and equivalent practices), financial abuse, etc..., but definitely making progress. GRBerry 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the Crazy Russian. Firstly, I take issue with the title, which is a neologism. The article's creater has confused subject with object. It should, if anything be "Sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy". Secondly, I see the scope as being too narrow for an encyclopaedic entry: It is better grouped under the broader descriptive of "Sexual abuse committed by persons in positions of authority". Deletion is not to hide the fact that sexual abuse cases are not perpetrated by people of the cloth, but to remove a divergent thread of opinion and the singling out of clergy as sex offenders, as opposed to teachers and doctors, just to give some examples. Ohconfucius 04:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a decent article, if there are elements of POV then we'd be better dealing with them than deleting the article. Agree with possible rename to "Sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy". wimbledon andy 11:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

--Comments by alleged socks-- The following comments were made by recently created accounts with few edits other than to the article in question or this AFD.

  • KEEP As we all know clergy abuse is a problem in all religions. All one needs to do is pick up any newspaper. It's vitally important for those who were abused by Priests, Nuns, Rabbis, Cantors, Monks, Pastors, etc. I think it's only those who try to cover up for those who offend who would want this catagory deleted from Wikpedia. For those of you who don't know, the term clergy abuse relates to not only sexual abuse, but also physical abuse, and other forms of manipulation for the gain of the individual doing the offending. talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ner Israel (talk • contribs)

email 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep This is an important topic. Maybe someone can expand it so if fits the protocols of Wikipedia. I don't know what you would redirect this to? I think it's a topic of it's own merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by pokrov1 (talk • contribs)
    • Sock. - crz crztalk 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important page. Why would someone delete a topic that we hear in the news every day? I do agree it needs to be expanded. Mary Anne Wilson
  • Keep I just read the excellent information on this page. I can't imagine anyone wanting to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by meshugana (talk • contribs)
    • Another sock. - crz crztalk 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has been expanded substantially since it was nominated for deletion. The original article was very short and warranted nomination for deletion. --Richard 07:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — definately a keeper. Malka Esther 11:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Definately a sock - crz crztalk 21:15, 31 October 2006 (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.