Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution involving Vatican City

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Vatican employee sex scandal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RS do not confirm that the acts were committed in Vatican City. These are two people who also worked in Vatican City. Sort of like saying that two people from the United States had sex in Granada and including the item in "Sex in the United States", groping (as it were) desperately for some connection between the two. There is no connection with the Vatican, except that the two occasionally volunteered there. Great headline on slow news day. Lousy encyclopedia material. Having said that, was there ever "Prostitution in the Vatican?" Well, if you go back far enough, there was. But this is hardly it. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the scandal involved the Vatican and two people who worked in it, so 2010 Vatican sex scandal is a perfectly appropriate title, or 2010 Vatican gay prostitution scandal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the witty nomination. Also, this is a classic coatrack article. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COAT WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree that it fails WP:COAT and WP:RS
Strong keep @Bearian:, @Jersey92: and @United States Man:, I strongly suggest you read up on what constitutes WP:GNG and what sources and content is acceptable on wikipedia. Frankly it is worrying that not one of you spotted that the content was acceptable and contains multiple top newspaper sources but was simply under the wrong title. The 2010 Vatican sex scandal was highly publicized and a notable scandal. There's plenty of reliable sources to prove this is the case. Let's not censor the RC church and wikipedia from covering it, as I can't think of any other valid reason why you'd want to delete it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Of course there are reliable sources, people just haven't bothered to look for them. in the four "delete" votes so far, I've not seen anything from WP:DEL-REASON to justify getting rid of the article. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT just isn't strong enough grounds for deletion. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wikipedia is not censored, and as per SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld there are numerous and reliable sources for this article. This was also major news at the time, so this article will always stay notable. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 09:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. The title was poorly chosen, but that is not a reason for deletion and has been fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per sources provided. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are multiple reliable and independent sources regarding the scandal.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under its new title. The former title was indeed poorly chosen. Negative comments above were probably based largely on that inaccurate choice. With the new more precise title, it no longer fails WP:COAT. Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article suffers several content issues that it cannot be accepted in its current form. The "Background" section strongly borders on original research/synthesis, as it suggests a connection between this particular scandal and the sexual abuse of minors. This connection is unsubstantiated by references, even though individual facts are adequately cited. The incident would otherwise appear isolated, and suggesting larger connections without sufficient documentation is inappropriate. As for the extensive quotes from the Catechism, these seem unnecessary. Of course the Vatican teaches that prostitution is immoral, this barely needs stating. Including the teachings regarding homosexuality are a bit more relevant, as this attitude is rapidly becoming less common. However, the extensive quoting, would seem to be an attempt to spin this as hypocrisy on the church's part, making this a "gotcha" article. It is more the case that the church has detailed teaching regarding appropriate behavior, such that individual violators, such as the ushers involved in the story, can be appropriately disciplined.

I would strongly recommend the "background" section be removed, with at most much shorter quote from the catechism regarding prostitution/homosexuality, in the interest of neutrality and reliable sourcing. Significant copy editing for the remainder is also required to make clear who the actors are, and their role in the Vatican. I might also suggest considering a more precise name for the article, as there are several competing sexual scandals involving the Vatican. Only if these content issues can be addressed would I support a Keep. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After making several of these edits myself, I recommend ~~Speedy~~ Keep. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reviewing the history of the article, it clearly had serious issues that would have warranted deletion. These issues do not apply any more; the scope of the article has considerably narrowed from a blathering about the Vatican allegedly employing thousands of prostitutes down to a very narrow, indisputable incident. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment: As the page's scope has considerable narrowed, perhaps the pages that link to it should be reconsidered. It was previously part of a series of "Prostitution in Country X" articles, and linked to directly from articles in the series. As it is no longer a "mid-importance" part of this series, inbound links should be reconsidered. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see coverage in The Guardian, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, CNN, BBC News. All other problems can be fixed by ordinary editing and discussion, which anyone can do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as 2010 Vatican employee sex scandal. I'd strongly suggest a move protection. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about an accurate renaming of the article? Italians, who happened to both volunteer at the Vatican, accused of running a homosexual ring in Italy. A bit long. I admit. But by this or any other title allows other "guilt by association" articles: "South Dakotans who were accused of burglary both volunteer at the Red Cross." "Americans, both Little League Coaches, accused of embezzling funds from their places of work." Totally uninteresting articles, except for the volunteer organization "linkage." Student7 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the incident would not be notable if they hadn't been employed by the Vatican; choristers by any stretch are employed, and the other was a former "senior adviser". Their actions do reflect upon there employer, and it would be dishonest to claim otherwise. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up: Even the most neutral Atheist expects employees at the Vatican to not run prostitution rings. Similarly, everyone expects Little League coaches to not be thieves. That such individuals, held in position of public trust, commit crimes anyways hurts the organizations they are associated with. The violation of public trust is notable, and places the public on notice about the organization. How the organization responds is thus telling of the organization's values. Does it react with genuine surprise and openness to accountability and swift discipline, or with evasiveness and excuses? If Little League, for instance, allowed embezzling coaches to remain without expressing some profound mitigating circumstances, it would implicitly endorse criminal behavior, and parents ought to take note. Likewise in this article, the inner mind of the Vatican is ever so slightly exposed to the world, as the individual were removed from employment and the Vatican's motives for doing so were discussed. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep at the 2010 Vatican employee sex scandal, perhaps linked from this country's entry in Category:Prostitution by country. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Vatican City (or a variant) might still be a viable article in its own right, if it were carefully written to provide a portal to both historic prostitution associated with the Papal States, as well as the handful of contemporary incidents in the modern city-state. Very careful attention would have to spent to avoid undue weight to minor incidents in such a mid-level importance article. The work of the closely related Holy See and other church sectors addressing sex work might also be briefly discussed. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2014 (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.