Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School

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 merge to Selwyn House School. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School[edit]

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

Although this article refers to a "scandal", it is about several incidents which the article fails to connect. There is no evidence that any of these incidents were referred to as a scandal. There is already an article about the school. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the title fits perfectly with the existing category about school sex abuse scandals. Many of these types of events involve a large number of people over an extended period of time, with multiple arrests, inquiries and trials, therefore it is more than appropriate to refer to it as an abuse scandal of sexual nature. Besides, there are very similar article titles like this that were written for Catholic sex abuse cases, such as the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese for example. ADM (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as no sources connects all these miniscandals, whose notability is questionable to begin with, this would fall under WP:NOR. This is different from the abuse scandals in the the Boston archdiocese, where newspaper were indeed discussing a pattern of abuse and were connecting the individiual cases. Pantherskin (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
change to no opinion ~~without a source connecting these various incidents, lumping them together as one "coverup"/"pattern of activity" would appear to be a violation of WP:OR / WP:SYN.~~ The use of "scandal" in the title also seems problematic with WP:NPOV, although that is not reason to delete in and of itself. MM. 207.69.137.39 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this source that I think supports the argument that they are connected andyzweb (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/12/jonathan-kay-on-his-alma-mater-selwyn-house-then-and-now.aspx#ixzz0dr4OhfEg The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

The article actually says the opposite: "casual news readers might be deceived into thinking that Friday’s bombshell is part of some sort of uninterrupted epidemic of abuse." The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Selwyn House School. There isn't one sex abuse scandal, so much as a series of seemingly unrelated scandals, which is the point, it seems that the source Andyzweb was able to track down is trying to make. We'd need a source to group them together as a single, ongoing, scandal in order to warrant this article as it currently stands. In particular, Doucet's case is only connected to the school because he was a teacher there - the crimes in which he accused were unrelated to the institution. Given that, I think the content could be better treated as part of the school's article. - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move anything notable to the school to the school article as a single article it gives undo weight on unrelated incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Selwyn House School This content would be better placed in the school article. The scandal has not garnered enough coverage to be notable as a separate entity. Additionally, the topic does not pass the notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (events). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Selwyn House School. I don't see any reason why this should exist as a stand-alone article when all the information here would fit perfectly well as 2 four sentence paragraphs in the Sexual abuse allegations section of the school's article. Wine Guy Talk 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Does not warrant or need a sep article. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge Not defensible as a separate article. Looking in relevant categories, I really do not see any other equally badly focused and badly titled article. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the '$5 million compensation' section gives reason to think these apparently separate scandals are all connected - the linked article refers to the teachers who are mentioned in the first two sections. I wouldn't object to a merge if the information is preserved, but I think there's enough here for a separate article without violating WP:SYN. Robofish (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2010 (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.