Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protestant church sex scandals

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant church sex scandals[edit]

I prodded which was shortly removed. The rationale I gave for the prod follows: This is 100% original research and POV, to wit, no encyclopedic content. While it is possible that a proper article could be created on the sex scandals plaguing the protestant church, this isn't it. Note that the author removed most of the text after removing the prod tag (see history for the full text). I do think an article can be created on this topic, but just because an article can be created is not a proper rationale for rehabilitation of unencyclopedic content. Fuhghettaboutit 05:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

I did revise it and shorten it. It is really little more then a stub at this point. However, there is nothing in it that is demonstrably false. I suggest leaving it as a stub until it can be polished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs)

Reluctant keep. Has potential to be a real article. psch e mp | talk 06:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did say I was reluctant. Looking at this again, I feel the title is too vauge. "Protestant church" is just too generic for what would be happening in a specific denomimation. psch e mp | talk 20:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not as awful as the prodded version, but still. Still unsourced. Still feels like a POV fork. It's got a quote and that's it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Current stub contains no sourced information except a quote (whose link I had to fix). The general external link provided is a page that starts off "Welcome to a collection of news reports of ministers sexually abusing children". (That's just creepy.) The site has no Alexa ranking. I agree that this topic can be a useful article, but it currently lacks any prose worth keeping. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Un sourced. Not a useful stub since there is no sourced starting point.Obina 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no sources and unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not clear which church this article is referring to. There is no central "Protestant Church." Brian G. Crawford 17:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - as above. Also, please see Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal - Ali-oops ^✍ 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. There are 30,000 Protestant churches. You can't write an article about abuse cases in every one of them, so it has to be general. There is one just for Catholics. Why not have one for Protestants? Sections for Jimmy Swaggart etc. can be added. It is POV to delete it just because it's creepy. The one on Catholic priest sexual abuse is pretty creepy to, so shouldn't it be deleted? This gives a starting point to balance the whole issue of sexual abuse instead of making it appear to be solely the perogative of Catholic priests. I think there should also be entries for abuse among Rabbi's, Buddhists, Muslims, and others. It is POV just to have one for Catholics. Let's be fair here. Also I would like to add there is a dearth of information on Protestant church scandals. They are not studied or covered as much. This makes it difficult to write an entry. Let it stand as a stub and be improved over time. Cestusdei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

Comment. Um yeah, Catholic is *one* denomination, that's why there is an article for that. The term Protestant Church includes tens of thousands of denominations, each of which may or may not have such a scandal. You can't lump these all together. psch e mp | talk 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are 22 ritual churches within Catholicism. Should I demand that we have a seperate article for each rite? One for the Roman Rite, one for the Coptic Rite etc.? There is simply no way to cover the issue without using the word "Protestant" to cover the spectrum. Otherwise this is simply a pretext to avoid writing about the issue at all (except for when it's about Catholics). If you check the link you will see it covers many denominations. This is the only way to do it. I am aware that there is sentiment to not focus on Protestant scandals. But they do exist and deserve the same treatment as the Catholic ones. It is admittedly harder to do, but we should start somewhere. Cestusdei— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

Comment. you wrote: "There is simply no way to cover the issue without using the word "Protestant". Um, yes there is. You say Methodist, Epicsopal, Presbyterian, Lutheren, Baptist etc. Its easy. Besdies, I'd hate for wikipedia to get sued for libel when it lumps all protestants together and says they have sex scandals. And don't confuse Catholic rites with denominations. They aren't the same thing. (although those who recognise the pope and those that don't (Orthodox) *are* different. psch e mp | talk 06:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No meaningful content. Unless a generalization can legitimately be made for Protestant scandals, I don't see how the article can be salvaged. A category of (verified!) Protestant sex scandals might make some sense. Peter Grey 13:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the Catholic Church sued Wikipedia for libel? You cover only abuse scandals in the Catholic Church as if they don't happen elsewhere. Do Protestant children count less? Is their abuse somehow different or okay then if the perpetrator was Catholic? Are you prepared for 30,000 articles each covering a different denomination? And you claim there is no central Protestant body, so who exactly is going to sue wikipedia then? If you check the link you will find almost 1000 scandals with their respective denominations listed. That's pretty meaningful and verified. What I see here is an intense desire to avoid covering an important issue due to POV. If this article doesn't make it then the one on the Catholic scandals should go. Unless you simply want to admit bias. Frankly I don't see the problem with an article on this unless there is bias at work. Again part of the problem is that there are no comprehensive records or studies. No one has bothered, other then that one site, to start adding up the Protestant scandals. The denominations aren't trotting out their records for public perusal. If anyone knows where we can find more detailed info please speak up. But if you look at the site you know it is happening. You say be more specific. I would be delighted to, but the Baptists et al are not being real cooperative. They don't have to be since they are not under the microscope. The Orthodox are mired in sex scandals right now in Greece. Have you heard about that? Probably not, since it isn't a Catholic scandal. Why in the world do you want to keep facts out of wikipedia or should I say THESE facts? Cestusdei— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

Delete. pointless... "my church is being blamed, i wanna share the pain" Other churches have sexual abuse scandals... look them up, add them with sources, maybe this page won't just be rampant POV. WookMuff 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ps. start with the churches with young boys in robes... oh wait, there is already a page about that religion[reply]

WookMuff makes my point for me. You can see his bigotry. This is exactly why we need an article that covers the issue in Protestant churches. It gives facts rather then simply reinforcing bias. Cestusdei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.9 (talk • contribs)

Damn, i am discover ed. Quick, scatter! Tool, i have nothing against catholicism in general or in the specific. The reason i think catholics cop more flack about pedophilic sex scandals is mere opportunity, not the quality or quantity of men called.WookMuff 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was clearly created as a tit-for-tat measure to attack Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal article. Article contains no useful sourced content; the only sourced quote specifically addresses the lack of information on topic. - Rynne 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's logic. Are you denying that there is abuse in Protestant churches? Look at the link. You have Islamic terrorism and Zionist terrorism articles. Is that tit for tat? Is it an attack to provide information on this issue? If I call the Catholic one an "attack" will you delete it? Probably not. Cestusdei

You're willfully missing the point. There is no conspiracy against the subject matter. We are a cabal, but only to the extent we want this encyclopedia to have encyclopedic content. If you had penned a good, sourced article, we wouldn't be having this "debate." --Fuhghettaboutit 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link to the best source I could find. No studies have been done as far as I can tell. By providing at least a brief stub with the link we put as much out there as exists currently. It's the best that can be done at this point and is better then nothing. At least if someone has a question they get pointed in the right direction. We can certainly link to the TV evangelist scandals. I argue that this be permitted despite it's stub form since it seem to be the only information available. The alternative is to simply ignore what is there. Perhaps others have access to more information and can add to it. So why not leave it as a work in progress? Cestusdei

That woud be fine if this was a different type of reference work. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's are not the venue for news, or original research or academic papers, etc.. An encyclopedia is a compendium of already know information. It is not or should not be a first source but a second-hand source, and good articles are a synthesis of original source material, if you will. I (we?) have no problem with the nature of what you are writing per se, what I object to is its inclusion in this encyclopedia. There is no rancorous intent or hidden agenda. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the problem. What is known is minimal right now. If I had detailed studies I would certainly put those in. I wish I did. All I can do is put in what is available. I can't do the research myself. I grant it is just a small stub with only one link, but if that's all that's out there then that's all that can be put in. But something is better then nothing. Maybe someone out there will see the stub and have access to more information then I do. It won't hurt to let it stay. It may be that someone will find the reference useful. I think I have said as much as I can say about the article in it's defense. I hope that wikipedia will keep it at least until something better comes along. If something does then it can be replaced. I think that is fair and will also shield wikipedia from the claim that they focus only on catholic scandals out of bias. Keep it, everybody wins and no one really loses.

Delete per nom and Rynne. Deletion from Wiki is not a denial that the problem exists, it is an acknowledgement that the topic has insufficient information for an encyclopadeia article. JGF Wilks 07:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rynne. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 01:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more information and added it verbatim. I think you should give it a look. Hopefully this answers the problems. It is virtually a new article and no longer a stub. Cestusdei 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this self-admitted verbatim lifting of a Northwest Indiana Times article [1]. Editors shouldn't create or "improve" Wikipedia articles by violating others' copyrights. We are expected to write our own material based on sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to improve the article and you still don't like it. You say there is no agenda here, but my doubts are resurrected. I cited the article I used. This is getting ridiculous. I have checked other articles on wikipedia. I find plenty of stubs which are allowed to survive. Other articles contain blatent bias or falsehoods or unverifiable statements and they too are permitted to continue. POV seems to be ignored in many cases. Yet here suddenly all the rules apply. This doesn't seem to be a real encyclopedia at all. Just a forum like any other that pretends to be more. I think that no matter what I do you will not allow this article to survive.Cestusdei 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, your own anti-religious bias is noted. I don't think that anti-religious bigots should be permitted to remove anything from religious articles.Cestusdei 17:56, 9 March 2006 (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.