Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy
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 keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy[edit]
- Abuse scandal in the Sisters of Mercy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm following up on concerns raised by an IP user [1]. In essence, there was no scandal, as the name would suggest, as there has been no coverage of any Sisters of Mercy member who has been charged with sexual abuse, except for one who was charged but subsequently found not guilty. Bilby (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify per issues raised below - my concern is that the topic is not notable, as the article has included no evidence of a wider scandal with the Sisters of Mercy as a whole, so the topic seems not to be notable in itself, but a case of synthesis. The one case raised at the moment was not part of a wider issue. I don't have any problems with individual cases being covered elsewhere (eg Nora Wall), but the question is whether or not an article grouping these is notable, or if there are sources showing a scandal relating to the group as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the user was not an IP address account, but Francish7 (talk · contribs). Looking at the article talk page I see that xe is not the only person to assert that this article is libellous. Interestingly, I thought that you were following on from Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (AfD discussion), since they were both created by ADM (talk · contribs). Checking the article for BLP problems, I notice that several editors have already been looking at it on that basis, and have stripped out almost all of its original content before it was nominated for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. The comment was manually signed, so I just assumed an IP. I've struck and rectified that above. There were a lot of these created by ADM, but a lot were valid, so while I watchlisted them at the time due to the risk of BLP problems and removed anything I could pick up, I could only raise some here. Francish7 prompted me to look at the article again, and in truth there didn't seem enough to justify it. Or at least, enough concerns to warrant bringing it here for discussion. In the interests of disclosure, I removed a large chunk of content about a year ago due to BLP, copyvio and other concerns [2]. The version that prompted nomination is here - it has since been edited. It included the case of Nora Wall. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Francis Hannaway here - aka Francish7. I agree that the article should be deleted for the reasons you have stated. It's not really an encyclopedic subject when 1) it uses the words "scandal" so easily in its title - and without any support and 2) that there is absolutely no content ... someone was convicted and then acquitted. No other details have been offered. I seem to remember a news article which suggested that the compensation was paid as a good-will gesture (I could be wrong), but there is certainly nothing specific written in the article. One more point is that the article looks like it only concerns Ireland, although someone threw in a comment about the United States. If it is only about Ireland then this should be reflected in the title.
With so little information, the article is straying dangerously close to possible libel - and for this reason alone, should be deleted. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 19:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Francish7, that problems with the title are things that don't require an administrator's deletion tool to fix. You, and every editor with an account, have all of the tools required for fixing problems with an article's title: the move tool to rename the article and the edit tool to edit the article introduction. An argument for deletion is that this page and its entire edit history cannot be renamed/refactored into a valid article. Concentrate less upon whether the title has an unnecessary word, and more on whether there's any subject to be had and written about. We focus, at AFD (and indeed in Wikipedia as a whole), on what the literature out in the world actually says. Does it cover this subject in any way? If so, how? What sources are there? Who authored them? What subjects do they address? How do they address them? After all, summarizing and systematizing the properly recorded and published knowledge of the world is what we're aiming for.
So … is there a documented subject? Have you looked? Where did you look? What did you find? Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Francish7, that problems with the title are things that don't require an administrator's deletion tool to fix. You, and every editor with an account, have all of the tools required for fixing problems with an article's title: the move tool to rename the article and the edit tool to edit the article introduction. An argument for deletion is that this page and its entire edit history cannot be renamed/refactored into a valid article. Concentrate less upon whether the title has an unnecessary word, and more on whether there's any subject to be had and written about. We focus, at AFD (and indeed in Wikipedia as a whole), on what the literature out in the world actually says. Does it cover this subject in any way? If so, how? What sources are there? Who authored them? What subjects do they address? How do they address them? After all, summarizing and systematizing the properly recorded and published knowledge of the world is what we're aiming for.
- Hello, Francis Hannaway here - aka Francish7. I agree that the article should be deleted for the reasons you have stated. It's not really an encyclopedic subject when 1) it uses the words "scandal" so easily in its title - and without any support and 2) that there is absolutely no content ... someone was convicted and then acquitted. No other details have been offered. I seem to remember a news article which suggested that the compensation was paid as a good-will gesture (I could be wrong), but there is certainly nothing specific written in the article. One more point is that the article looks like it only concerns Ireland, although someone threw in a comment about the United States. If it is only about Ireland then this should be reflected in the title.
- Sorry. The comment was manually signed, so I just assumed an IP. I've struck and rectified that above. There were a lot of these created by ADM, but a lot were valid, so while I watchlisted them at the time due to the risk of BLP problems and removed anything I could pick up, I could only raise some here. Francish7 prompted me to look at the article again, and in truth there didn't seem enough to justify it. Or at least, enough concerns to warrant bringing it here for discussion. In the interests of disclosure, I removed a large chunk of content about a year ago due to BLP, copyvio and other concerns [2]. The version that prompted nomination is here - it has since been edited. It included the case of Nora Wall. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that the nominator or other users supporting deletion are making arguments that connect in any way to the article in question. The nominator states that there were no charges, but the sources clearly state that the order was not only charged but found guilty. If the title is a problem, deal with it by moving, not by deleting. Absent any argument for deletion, keep. (This may also be a helpful source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the Order was never charged. An ex-member was, although I gather she was a member at the time of the alleged rape. The only other case previously covered in the article didn't result in any charges.
- Anyway, I didn't word the nomination well. The main issue is that there is nothing to suggest that there was a scandal in the Sisters of Mercy per se. Instead there was an incident involving an ex-member who appears to have been falsely accused of and convicted of rape before the conviction was quashed. This is covered at Nora Wall. Otherwise, there is nothing to indicate any sot of scandal for the group as a whole. Thus the topic appears not to be notable. The soruce you indicate does raise issues, but again it isn't clear that this shows a larger scandal.
- Part of the problem is that these articles were often created by synthesis, by merging isolated abuse cases in various articles into an "Abuse scandal in the ..." article, without evidence that the isolated cases relate to a larger scandal. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of this seems to be a title issue. I've linked a source which describes cases other than the Wall one; would you be content to rename the article "Abuse in the Sisters of Mercy" or something? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a title problem, but whether these articles which pull together unrelated cases necessarily point to an issue as a whole, or if they should be regarded as synthesis and treated as individual cases. In some situations where there is evidence of internal coverups or institutional problems, or where sources discuss the Order in regard to the allegations rather than just individual members, the answer is clearly yes. In others where we are only talking about one or two allegations unrelated to the group as a whole the answer tends to be no. This is one that I think sits somewhere in the middle.
- I've added the source you pointed to - that might be enough, and I'm happy if material like that warrants a keep. But at the moment we're relying on a passing statement regarding the Ryan Report and half a paragraph in a book. I'll keep digging as well, though, and see if I can dig up more that might point to a wider issue. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of this seems to be a title issue. I've linked a source which describes cases other than the Wall one; would you be content to rename the article "Abuse in the Sisters of Mercy" or something? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like the article has established WP:GNG per sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on Roscelese's suggestion, I built up the article as best as I could using the documentaries as the basis. It doesn't take the normal form, as there were no convictions or solid evidence of coverups as found in some of the other Orders, but their very public and open apology and the evidence of mistreatment in multiple institutions seems sufficient to develop an article on the topic, so I did what I could on those lines. I'd withdraw the nom, but I'm assuming that Francis represents a delete !vote. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The tille is "abuse", not "sexual abuse". The article is not a good one, but the order was guilty of physical abuse and poor treatment in its ophanages over decades. I am not convinced that the title is quite right, but that is certainly not a reason for Deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- either with the main article, or otherwise all order specific articles should be merged into one called something like "Abuse by order in the Catholic Church". Rí Lughaid (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - taking a definite stance here... I say it passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.