Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Shortcuts: WP:DCHRISTIANITY WP:DSCHRISTIANITY

Points of interest related to Christianity on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions

Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Christianity. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Christianity}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
• There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Christianity.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

Contents 1 Christianity 1.1 Otis Moss III 1.2 Protestant Child Abuse (Renamed: Northern Ireland Protestant child abuse allegations controversy) 2 Christianity Proposed deletions 3 Misc.

[edit] Christianity

[edit] Protestant Child Abuse (Renamed: Northern Ireland Protestant child abuse allegations controversy)

Protestant Child Abuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like a hit piece. Neutrality^talk 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence is presented that any Protestant denomination has been involved in, or been involved in covering up, child abuse. This article makes no more sense than one about Left-hander child abuse. For the article to survive it would have to specifically target a particular brand of protestantism IMO. As it is, it just looks like unsubstantiated buckshot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. What's the difference between this child abuse and any other? Basically, what Malleus said. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: There is child abuse in different places, and this article shows that it exists somewhere where others may not otherwise expect it. Sebwite (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Valid, encyclopedic topic, with references and reliable sources. Note that I properly formatted the references. Sebwite (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• None of the references relate to the stated topic of the article, however. What is this "Protestant Church" of which you speak? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - attack article. if the Kincora Boys Home scandal is notable enough for its own article it can be on its own. Please also note that there is no "Protestant Church" --T-rex 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Malleus Fatuarum. Definite hit peice. Ostap 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per T-rex. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete But in large part because "Protestant" is sort of a vague catch-all term and because the title's wording is potentially POV. Going by Catholic sex abuse cases this should be titled more like "Protestant child abuse cases" to avoid implying there's a "Protestant form" of child abuse. Although the title "Catholic sex abuse cases" is, in my opinion, far from ideal. Something like "Protestantism and child abuse", in the vein of Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse, would be preferable. Still this wouldn't solve that "Protestantism" is itself a vague term, so it'd be better to have "X and child abuse" articles be by denomination.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per above.Counter-revolutionary (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• keepchristian science monitor makes it come off as notable and having RS to meMyheartinchile (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the article is written with a partisan point of view. Given the issues raised above and the lack of any sources that actually talk about systematic abuse within the "Protestant Church", it would be inherently impossible for this article to ever meet WP:NPOV. Indeed there is no single "Protestant Church" as already noted, so this article cannot exist at this title. At least it would have to be retitled something like Evidence of child abuse within some Protestant churches. But given the sources are about child abuse across multiple faiths, why isn't this article Religious child abuse? The agenda here is very clear and is incompatible with the aims and policies of Wikipedia. Gwernol 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• If there is an article in this content, it looks to be on Kincora Boys' Home. We already have an unsourced stub on that article relevant to The Troubles. Since this article isn't using reliable sources on that material, it wouldn't be useful to merge that content there - let that article be edited by someone who actually has reliable sources to work from. The reliable source [1] is about child sex abuse in American Christian churches generally (Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox are specifically mentioned, and other Christian denominations and non-denominational churches are implied), and probably should be used somehow to introduce some balance to Catholic sex abuse cases - I'll go suggest this on the talk page. If there were an article about sexual abuse in churches generally, or religion generally, the reliable source could also be used there. I don't see any evidence of such an article existing, and one source - particularly a newspaper article focused on a single country and time - can't support one, I don't see anything reasonable to do other than to delete. GRBerry 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. NPOV problems, and possible WP:BLP issues as well, with names being named. Apparently author(s) uses one alleged case of pedophilia, which might be notable itself for its own article, to essentially slam the entire Protestant movement by implication of the title. Smells like a backlash to all the attention given on similar problems reported within the Catholic Church. Wikipedia is not a blog page for posting arguments and rebuttals on legal cases, nor is it a battleground or payback site for Catholic vs. Protestant attacks. WP:SOAP applies. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

comment: The renaming appears to be at least a small step in the right direction. Perhaps rename it further to Northern Ireland churches child abuse scandal, perhaps mentioning in passing in the article that the church(es) involved were Protestant rather than Catholic (with appropriate links to related articles), and clean up any POV-pushing that carries the "well they do it too!" soapboxing attack tone, and we might have a neutral article worth preserving. Ideally the article should evenly cover general child abuse scandals in the churches, regardless of the Denomination or branch of Christianity. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that such a title can work; in The Troubles context Protestant has a specific (and mostly political) meaning. Unfortunately, the one reliable source in the article is totally irrelevant to that context, meaning the article demonstrates no reliable sources. So unless it also receives a major rewrite with sourcing, it still needs to be deleted. GRBerry 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: POV, soapboxing article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Quite offensive, actually. BradV 18:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You know, a lot of things are offensive to a lot of people - and as such, articles are not deleted from here for being offensive, per se. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but I don't think articles should be titled or created to offend people. I could write an article titled Lutheran rape and use it to dispassionately discuss various Lutherans who raped people without any context. Even if thoroughly sourced this would be POV in a way, a kind of attack piece. I don't know if that's what the person meant, but it might be.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Point taken, there - then again, such an article would generally fall under WP:ATTACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Could be reworked, maybe. As is, delete. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Proposed deletions

• Wednesday crucifixion theory (via WP:PROD on 2008-05-22)

• Saint Saviour (via WP:PROD on 2008-05-22)

---

[edit] Misc.