Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney

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

The article relies on primary sources to create an essay discussing sexual abuse in the diocese. However, only one case was raised, in which the alleged perpetrator never went to court. There doesn't seem to be enough to warrant the "sexual abuse scandal" title for one event, and most of the article is about the diocese's procedures for dealing with abuse allegations, which would be better covered in the diocese article. Bilby (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the article focuses on one case, there were several other cases mentioned before the Royal Commission (and which are referenced in its final report). As regards the main case mentioned in this article, it *did* go to (civil) court, and the article quotes from the judge's decision. The reason the article focuses on that case is because it was a proven case, both through evidence and the perpetrator's admissions (which were documented both within the Royal Commission and subsequently), so Bilby's use of the word "alleged" is incorrect.

I disagree that "most of the article is about the diocese's procedures" - close to half of the article is about the Royal Commission's examination of the main case and others. The diocese's procedures for dealing with complaints were amended principally as a result of that complainant's case and her subsequent activism.

This article was originally part of the main diocese article, but was expanded (with a number of errors included, though, which have since been corrected) and given its own page. I believe it's sufficiently large that it would be inappropriate to have it return to being part of the main diocese's article.

I guess it depends on how you define "scandal". I personally think that it's scandalous that ANY denomination's handling of clergy abuse complaints can be described as a disgrace. But more generally, the "clergy sexual abuse scandal" is referred to in many countries and across many denominations. It's not unreasonable for the article title to be taken as dealing with the piece of the scandal that deals with that issue in the Sydney Anglican diocese - ie. interpreting it not so much as "the scandal in the diocese", but "the part of the wider scandal which occurred within that particular denomination and diocese".

But even if the word "scandal" in the heading is a bit OTT, I see no reason why that should suggest that the whole article should be removed. Desda (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other cases aren't covered, making it seem that this is only about one issue. The judge's decision was that the one case discussed was consensual and that there was no means of proving that anything had happened while the girl concerned was underage. The accused never faced court himself.

In regard to focus, "Brief historical overview", "2004 code of conduct", "Safe Ministry Board" and "Redefined process of dealing with allegations" are all about the diocese's approach to sexual abuse accusations in general, and not about any scandal. The only section relating to actual abuse cases is "Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service".

My major concern is that the article reads like an essay - there is no evidence that this was a scandal per se, it relies almost entirely on primary sources, and most of it is unsourced personal interpretation by the editors. Given the nature of the topic, I don't feel that it is viable in this form. Although perhaps others will disagree. - Bilby (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Holy tl;dr, Batman! The article is a catastrophe. The lead does not relate to readers the what, when, and where of the event and the article pontificates about policy without informing about events. If there's an encyclopedia article hidden in this wall of prose, I don't see it. It's an original essay on church policy that only tangentially deals with the subject at hand, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm just dumb. There needs to be a hand grenade tossed at this one, without prejudice to recreation if there is an actual "Sidney Anglican Sexual Abuse Scandal" covered in multiple published sources. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is certainly an essay. It starts with "However, the ordinances which applied to clergy sexual abuse for nearly the whole of the 20th Century (1904–1996) proved as much of an obstacle to deposition of offending ministers as a help" and goes on from there. I'm surprised the article has survived so long. St Anselm (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps this could be rewritten into a legitimate article, but right now it's a mess that raises troubling BLP issues. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself is a WP:SYNTH from primary sources, with several key statements not supported by citations to reliable sources (raising WP:BLP issues, as noted by Nwlaw63). Also, there is no evidence of notability -- A Google search finds newspaper coverage on sexual abuse by clergy in Australia, but nothing which relates to the rather narrow subject of this article. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a breach of WP:PERP here, given that the case described by the article did not involve a finding of guilt by the Royal Commission, the civil action failed, and there was no criminal case. If there is a story here, it is how and why the Anglican Diocese of Sydney improved its processes, but apart from the actual Diocesan policies, I can't find any material on that. -- 202.124.75.207 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major edit and merge that which remains, and is of encyclopedic value, into Anglican Diocese of Sydney. Jance day (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator rationale. --LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- In contrast with the Catholic church, sexuyla abuse cases in the Anglican church are rare (though not unknown). This article seems to be about (1) the present safeguards (which can probably be merged (as a brief summary) into a parent article (2) A single abuse case, apparently not handled as well as it should have been. There is really far too litlte content to make a worthwhile article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 10 February 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.