Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians

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. There seems to be a consensus here that this should be deleted because of WP:OR and WP:BLP issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians[edit]

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

This was previously nominated in 2007, and the result was no consensus. I have been discussing the scope of the article, and the harder I look, the more I think the article should be deleted. Under what circumstances can we say these things are "scandals"? Is a pastor admitting a "homosexual affair" necessarily a scandal? For that matter, do all of these people self-identify as "evangelical"? It would seem not. St Anselm (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep as someone with an interest in this field (and someone who has contributed to the article), it fulfills an extremely useful purpose by summarising these scandals in one place. Without it, a researcher would have difficulty finding all the subjects. The concerns the nominator has raised have not been contentious to date. There have not been any real arguments over whether or not something counts as a scandal - the term is reasonably well-defined. Likewise the issue of whether someone is an evangelical has not been a problem. Whilst some people may not self-identify as such, evangelicalism is well-defined by the Bebbington quadrilateral. SmilingFace (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question", and that "these principles apply equally to lists". St Anselm (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I think you are misapplying that policy. Belief relates to overall faith - eg christian, muslim, hindu, etc, not a subdivision of a particular faith. Evangelicalism is a movement within protestant christianity, not a belief. Its beliefs are the same as other protestant christians. Please use common sense as I doubt this is a contentious matter.

(2) But in any case, that is an irrelevant argument, as if there was a subject who was clearly not an evangelical, they could be removed from the list. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD stress that an article that can be improved through editing is not a candidate for deletion. SmilingFace (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Without it, a researcher would have difficulty finding all the subjects." This is a poor argument for keeping the article. There are uncountable research questions and it is not the place of Wikipedia to anticipate each one and provide a summary of relevant articles. alanyst 17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was the version of the article nominated last time. St Anselm (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and revert to worldwide scope - see my comment below. SmilingFace (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment whilst we should assume good faith on the part of the nominator, I do wish to raise some background in the interests of transparency. The article previously had a worldwide scope but in March 2013 the nominator renamed it and reduced the scope to america-only (diff [[1]]). There was no prior attempt to obtain consensus. I was on a wikibreak at this time and didn't notice the change (I would have objected if I was around). I queried this yesterday with the nominator and respectfully suggested that his change didn't improve wikipedia. I didn't find his answers convincing - his main concern could have been fixed with a simple edit that preserved the worldwide scope. This morning I returned the article to its former name and added back the non-US entries. The nominator promptly reverted everything I did. Forgive me for saying this, it's not meant to be a personal attack, but the pattern of the nominator's behaviour suggests they may be seeking to suppress material that is critical of evangelical christians, particularly in the UK. My reasoning for this allegation is that their change to the article's scope had the effect of removing UK scandals. Also, from the times the nominator is active, I would guess that they are in the UK. They may be worried that UK scandals will be included once again if they lose the consensus over the reduced scope of the article, which was their change. Hence they have responded with this AfD. My apologies once again for raising this, but it is a possible conflict of interest. I will declare a personal interest in that I recently re-created Tony Anthony (evangelist), a UK evangelical who has recently been the subject of a scandal, and I was wanting to include him in this summary article. However, even in the absence of this, I would still have challenged the nominator's changes to the article once I became aware of them. SmilingFace (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I live in Australia (as my user page indicates). St Anselm (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did have a look but missed that. But my point is still valid as there are a number of Australian scandals that were deleted by your change. SmilingFace (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

further comment - with regret again, I need to mention that nominator just deleted three entries from this article on the grounds that one was unreferenced (ref could have easily been added from the main article) and two were not scandals (in my view they clearly were scandals and had stood for some time). I reverted these and he immediately redeleted the unreferenced one whilst I was in the process of adding a reference. Given his nomination of the article, could this be considered tendentious editing? I unwittingly broke WP:3R whilst reverting these, for which I apologise - I could have done all the reverts in a single edit but thought it would give a better history if I did them separately. SmilingFace (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject area which has been subject to discrete official scrutiny. Inclusion ('evangelical', 'scandal') can be discussed in each case where necessary. I recommend that the page should be moved back to the worldwide title, then split to create an American sub-page including the Senate investigation. (Disclosure: I'm sympathetic to the message but appalled by these messengers.) – Fayenatic London 12:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being a non-encyclopedic topic - we do not have a list of "Scandals involving noted (fill in the blank religious leaders)" and this appears to be a mélange including "this person was divorced!" type scandals. The "Senate investigation" bit, by the way, does not even belong in this "list" at all. Collect (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of lists of scandals - just because there are no other religious ones doesn't mean that these won't be created in the future, nor does it deny the notability of this list. There's no need to delete the article to rectify your other concerns. SmilingFace (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore global scope. No policy-based reason given for deletion, which boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The topic is notable and widely treated as such in reliable secondary sources. Identification as an evangelical is trivially easy to determine, as is the status of an event as a scandal. There is no policy basis for requiring events in a list to be related except in terms of the list criteria. That the scandals occured mainly in the United States is no reason to restrict the list exclusively to the United States. The list complies with all of our policy requirements for list articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list unless there are similar lists created for scandals involving other religious or atheistic people (WP:EGRS). Why not a List of scandals involving American atheists? Or American Catholics? Or American Jews? Or American Muslims? I'm sure all four of those lists could be created in a couple of hours. I don't see the value of this list except providing amusement for nonreligious people. Considering that lists like this could exist for people of every belief system and the fact that "scandal" is a subjective judgment, I don't see why one group of people are being targeted here. If the decision is to keep this page, I'll work with others to create one for other religious and nonreligious people. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country and Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone starts a list of (eg) Jewish scandals. Defining a scandal is not really subjective and it hasn't been a major issue with the article to date. SmilingFace (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a crucial difference here. Sex abuse cases are a crime that involve depositions, sometimes trials and settlements. I think that "Scandal" IS very fuzzy and it seems like many of those list were individuals conducting extramarital affairs or same sex relationships when they were stated to be conservatives. And, again, if anyone wanted to create an article on Buddhist leaders convicted of sexual abuse or Jewish leaders convicted of financial improprieties, those pages might be considered to have some merit to it because there is a court record and usually news media to document the circumstances of the event. Newjerseyliz (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO this looks more like a response to Catholic clergy scandals than an effort by the anti-religious faction. (And I really have to add that the fact that people are sinners is more often cited as a reason for religion, not against it.) Having said all that an encyclopedia is a place for plainly presented facts. Putting a lot of instances together to make a point (whatever point was intended here) falls under the category of original research, opinion, essay -- which are all discouraged by WP:NOT. I was also surprized to see that some people are included who are not even clergy. I don't think Richard Nixon would be included in a "List of Quaker scandals." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that some of the "scandals" were what's called "human weakness", some were plain fraud, and some seemed more like cases of mental illness. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're speculating about the reason for creation. A summary list is an aid to research and a valid article - it is not inherently against policy. We have plenty of other lists of scandals - see the numerous links in Political scandal for example. If this one is inappropriate, so are all the others. We also have List of religious leaders convicted of crimes. I think perhaps a new title along the lines of "list of scandals involving evangelical christian leaders" would be sensible, but that doesn't require deletion. A scandal is something that discredits someone, irrespective of the cause. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You're speculating about the reason for creation." Well, yes. That's why I said "IMO." Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a BLP nightmare. What is a "scandal"? What is an "evangelical"? etc. etc. Giant Snowman 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded to - the BLP issues are manageable and the terms are well-defined terms. The article is approx 10 years old and has not proved contentious. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

questionable; if kept needs to be renamed As it stands, the scope of the article according to its title is overly broad; evangelicals in the US, at any rate, are exceedingly common. At the very least it needs to be renamed somehow to reflect that this is a "clergy" category (yes, I know that's the wrong word, but you understand what I mean). Personally I think we were better off with the original televangelist scope. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "televangelist" is that it's very limited in scope. There are very few non-US televangelists, and not all of the US scandals have involved televangelists. I suggested "list of scandals involving evangelical christian leaders" as a new title - not everyone would be considered clergy. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potential for BLP violations; "scandal" is too subjective and sensationalist; will attract POV pushers and edit warriors offended over inclusion/exclusion of their favored/despised evangelical personalities. alanyst 17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential BLP violations are not grounds for deletion. Scandal is not subjective/sensationalist. If we say a list of evangelical scandals should be deleted, we must also delete all the lists linked in Political scandal, for example. The same concerns about POV pushing etc apply. Lists of scandals are an established type of article and have not been overly contentious or difficult to manage. SmilingFace (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the list does not assert notability of the set. WP:LISTN demands that the list topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". While individual scandals and "recent scandals" have been covered heavily, I can't find any significant discussion of the topic of American Evangelical scandals as a group in reliable sources. --JFH (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have twisted WP:LISTN by selectively quoting it and adding the word 'demands'. The actual sentence is (emphasis mine): One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. The policy also says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. WP:LISTPURP includes The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. I would submit that this (structured / summary) list article is a valuable information source. SmilingFace (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to not reading the guideline carefully, but it doesn't seem right to say you can turn a non-notable topic into a structured list and avoid deletion, especially when listed items are not notable. "Valuable information source" is exceedingly vague; any list of information is potentially valuable. The guideline admits there is no consensus here, so I feel comfortable with my argument. --JFH (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if I believed in the Napolean complex theory and I started an article on Scandals involving shorter than average men? I think that would be obviously WP:OR. It's the same here. The list is only here because (IMO) people tend to think religion and scandal-free behavior is or should be related. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To repeat what other editors have said, what is a 'scandal', and what is an 'evangelical Christian'? Quite frankly any negative categorization list is a clear delete to me. This landed on WP:BLP/N yesterday regarding the addition of negative information about a female pastor (or whatever they're called) that while salacious (I'm sure) could hardly have been construed as a scandal. Or could it? It depends on one's point of view, I suppose. That's the problem - the criteria is simply too subjective and a violation of WP:BLPCAT. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't looked into every article on the list to see what these "scandals" are all about, but I assume most of them are are not notable enough for their own articles, and it's not encyclopedic to list people based on minor scandals or simply personal problems. WP:LISTN should be interpreted stictly when it involves negative things about living persons, due to the general BLP principle of not giving undue weight to controversies etc. Also, WP:BLPCAT says "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" and I think this should be applied to lists, as well. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:OR, strong possibility of current/future WP:BLP violations, and failing WP:BLPCAT explicitly. Ansh6 6 6 18:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete-Its to WP:BLP violations what honey is to bears, Its as absurd as a page titled Scandals among Professors of Philosophy or Scandals among certified actuaries, besides, It fails WP:BLPCAT Sanju87 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly purging). These are unpleasant businesses which I would like to sweep under the carpet, but they have happened. This concerns hypocrasy by high-profile ministers of religion, whose lifestyle has proved to fall short: they have failed to practise what they preached. I appreciate BLP issues, but that merely requires everything to be properly sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2013 (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.