Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clergy abuse

Clergy abuse

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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)[reply]

Delete Blatant POV original research.--Húsönd 14:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blank The subject itself is notable enough, but I can agree this page is problematic. Is there an option for a redirect? Mister.Manticore 20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. This is a POV fork of Sexual abuse. A redirect would be unhelpful. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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. Mister.Manticore 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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. Mister.Manticore 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to it's original article. JASpencer 22:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR WP:POVFORK. Sandstein 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete, O.R. (stemming from a lack of reliable sources), POV fork. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep The phrase is notable enough and receives over 4 million Google hits. metaspheres 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Edison. Dionyseus 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

--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)
- Sock - CrazyRussian talk/

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)[reply]
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
- Sock. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep — definately a keeper. Malka Esther 11:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Definately a sock - crz crztalk 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Crazy Russian. Firstly, I take issue with the title, which is a neologism. 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)[reply]