Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse cases

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. The "delete" arguments are particularly weak. Calling an article a POVFORK is not helpful unless one also explains what particular (non-neutral) POV this article is supposed to further. The substantial question is whether this topic should be the subject of a spin-off subarticle, and none of the "delete" opinions cite a policy or guideline (such as original research, notability or verifiability) to explain why it should not. Absent an understandable argument for deletion, the article is not deleted. That's without prejudice to any editorial action such as rename, restructure or merge as editorial consensus may deem proper.  Sandstein  20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse cases

Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases (current title)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Article is based on a word-for-word copy of Scouting_sex_abuse_cases#United_States, thus amounts to a POVFORK. New material should be merged with pre-existing article on the same subject. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable topic but
  summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Now done - again, but with a more severe cull. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm familiar with this. Part of an hour-by-hour frenzy of creating new articles that duplicate existing ones, attempts to gut the article that it duplicated to try to make the fork fly and rename the new one to try to make the fork fly etc. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is part of the inevitable growth of WP that large articles are eventually split into smaller new ones. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• North, the new subarticle was renamed because you said you wanted it renamed. Don't suggest something, have us say okay, and then turn around and cite that agreement as a sign that we're acting in bad faith. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name changes about once per hour. As of my writing the title was problematic....with the "and" in it) it is about (implies) the connection between the national organization and sex abuse cases or the national organization in conjunction with those cases. This has immense lack-of-scope, POV, and wp:notability problems. The title that I suggested had none of those problems. Then it went through two more changes and the version of the minute "Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases" looks good. But lets wait 5 minutes and see if it changes again. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Scouting has 30 million kids in 161 different nations, yet the
  WP:SUMMARY, or we risk sending the message that 50% of the world's scouting-related sex abuse is caused by just one organization, the BSA-- an implication that is patently false and is, to my eyes, the definition of UNDUE weight. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It is the perverse insistence on covering each and every case of abuse that creates undue weight in the original article. Observers should note that this editor's initial move was to expand the section Boy_Scouts_of_America#Sex_abuse_cases, despite the existence of Scouting sex abuse cases, and didn't try to create the nominated article until his changes there were rejected by the community. Again... a classic POVFORK. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the article should not cover each and every case but it is a notable topic therefore it warrans its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Belchfire, you're criticizing me for listening to your advice. I added it to the top level, you felt it was UNDUE, and I listened and agreed. Perhaps you have some
  WP:OWN issues going here, but demonizing me for trying to help doesn't help us improve the wiki. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You could just cut it back in the original article. --Nouniquenames 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete pov fork --Nouniquenames 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a
  WP:CFORK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's not a split when it is done specifically in response to content being rejected. Read the description
  here, which outlines exactly what happened in this case. The editor who created this article couldn't get his material inserted where he wanted it, so he started a new article just to highlight his POV-cruft. Trouble is, the new article duplicates the scope of an existing article. That's a POVFORK no matter how you spin it. ► Belchfire-TALK 08:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's a very negative reading of motives, Belchfire. I added some things to the main page, someone rved it as UNDUE weight on the main page, so I went to work on the subarticle. The first thing I noticed was that the sub-article needed a split because 1 nation took up half the article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DUCK, too. ► Belchfire-TALK 09:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• (
  WP:OTHERSTUFF argument we often split articles of this type. We have got categories full of the stuff. See Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country. It is inevitable that we have ones for scouting as well. I have yet to go through to see how this whole thing erupted but any POV material can be sorted out even with two separate articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]