Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses

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 Due to consensus that this will always violate the Bigoraphies of Living persons policy and that the list is redundant to other wikipedia articles. A rename was tried after a previous AFD but clearly did not address the problems with the list. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses

BLP nightmare Sceptre ^(talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT only if renamed "List of Roman Catholic clergy convicted of sex offenses" and all references to people who have only been charged must be removed, along with any unsourced names that are added. I agree this is a BLP nightmare, but it's am important and notable topic. The only way I can see this working under BLP is to restrict it to those who are convicted (thereby preserving "innocent until proven guilty" and "do no harm") and make sure it's policed regularly for any unsourced names being added. I just removed one listed under Estonia, for example. If the article is not renamed and the criteria tightened, then this is to be considered a Delete vote due to BLP concerns. 23skidoo (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP nightmare and vand/OR magnet. I agree with 23skidoo that the subject is important, but the subject is already covered in depth at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, with which it's already largely redundant. Not a BLP nightmare, yes an OR magnet, but the fuller article has withstood that and the list is notable. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally removed the info from Roman Catholic sex abuse cases since it was a logical progression of that page. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It was nominated for deletion under the old name. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11 deletes and 3 renames and it was closed as rename. Seems the renaming has not completely removed the concern of the community that this is a problematic listing. SilkTork *^YES! 09:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to "List of Roman Catholic clergy convicted of sex offenses". It is not a WP:BLP nightmare if suitably referenced. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. These people are already documented elsewhere and catalogued. Wikipedia articles should not be a list of "other stuff." Scandals are great for the tabloids. Shouldn't be here. Only reason is to hold people up to shame. Poor encylopedic reasons. As mentioned above, vandal magnet, but of the tabloid variety - poorly documented stuff. Student7 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia already has enough articles about the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal and this lists duplicates a lot of what is already in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. NancyHeise (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP violation, repeats info elsewhere, will lead to incontrollable vandalism and edit wars. Of no value. --Anietor (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I don't agree with any of the reasons for deletion given above, because (1) there doesn't seem to be anything in WP:DEL#REASON or any other Wikipedia policy about articles having to be deleted if they could potentially attract abuse, (2) the article has existed for a period of time and not seen much vandal activity anyway, (3) the information isn't completely redundant, so a merge should be considered first, if anything, and (4) WP:BLP sores can be fixed by proper sourcing. Reinis^talk 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the list, and at the related article, Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, I find the article balanced, sober and helpful to those wishing to know more about the incidence of sex abuse cases involving Roman Catholic clergy, while the list by its bare bones listing of accused individuals is not helpful. There is an individual listed who is still on trial, 5 red links, 3 links to single sentence stubs of possibly non-notable individuals, and another link to Eugene A. Greene, a war hero not accused of any sex crime. The list is poor quality, provocative, and as it stands is of no real assistance to anyone. Delete. In the meantime I will remove the red links, the link to the war hero, the mention of the man whose case is still being heard, and PROD the three single sentence articles on the non-notable individuals. SilkTork *^YES! 09:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A simple listing like this is no more encyclopedic than a list of shopkeepers charged with shoplifiting. We're not a database of legal actions, this sort of thing seems entirely outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Significant cases should have their own articles and/or be mentioned in the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article (which can put the events in context and provide an appropriate summary of the impact the cases have had - and so provide encyclopedic value). From what I see this already seems to be the case for the current contents of the list, hence delete rather than merge, though I have no objection to a merge if someone else identifies appropriate information to move over. A redirect may be appropriate if the list is looked for or linked to much. -- SiobhanHansa 13:31, 27 March 2008 (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.