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 No consensus and rename. It is clear from the discussion that the name of the article skewed the discussion. The topic is one that is widely known and various lists on this topic have been and continue to be compiled by reliable sources. The term accused does raise BLP concerns, which may be addressed by renaming the article as List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses. -- Jreferee t/c 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses[edit]

"Accused"??? Someone hasn't been reading WP:BLP. If we are going to make articles out of accusations, then we will be sued, it's just a matter of time.

The list contains some cases which the media document as sex abuse "accusations". Why would WP be sued if we simply reiterate what the media say? -- Alan Liefting talk 20:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When nominated the list contained unsourced accusations. However I don't think the issue of being sued is really the point - WP:BLP is at least as much about the impact we have on the lives of people we write about as it is about protecting our editors from being sued. -- SiobhanHansa 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is NPOV, verifiable and with no original research there is no problem with WP:BLP. -- Alan Liefting talk 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom. 1of3 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1of3 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Roman Catholic priests convicted of sex offenses and prune list. Jeffpw 08:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses and prune list; this name will not exclude listees by gender, and will not needlessly engender the creation of a separate list for those charged vs. convicted (you must be charged before you are convicted, so if two lists were created they should be merged anyway), and also avoids the problem of the term "convicted" having actually a narrower legal definition than many editors think it does. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It won't be an easy fix. This one has a lot of problems. Eight of the persons on there are isted as "convicted", several are just a blue link. Others out there have been accused in a lawsuit, rather than in a criminal indictment. When the lawsuit is successful, it is not a conviction. Lof3's concerns are valid, to the extent that when you make a list like this, there's no guard against a vandal adding in someone's name (in effect, making an accusation). That can be just as much of a problem for a "list of priests convicted". While it's a worthy topic, I don't think it can exist independently of an article about the lawsuits that have been filed in recent years. Mandsford 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe repairable. Bishops and higher can stay somewhere, maybe in higher level article. Articles on ordinary priests probably should be deleted (as they probably should on non-RC woman teachers and boys - this is just plain prurience). List can be maintained impersonally to meet WP:BLP guidlelines. e.g. "Rector at St. Brendan's 1992." The name would stay imbedded as a comment for tracking by editors. A footnote reference should be provided that documents the charge. Willingness to do this would also indicate that there is no pov by author. That is, the point of article is to record not to embarrass. Student7 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just about as pointless as List of groups referred to as cults. Hey, wait a minute... Burntsauce 17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipolicy WP:NOT#Directory. There are numerous wikipolicies in WP:NOT to justify deletion of this list of names of accused priests. Besides that, it is really an unethical use of Wikipedia to have a list of accused persons. What if some of these priests are innocent as may be the case with a certain percentage. How cruel is that to have a Directory on Wikipedia with your name on it even if you have never been convicted and are possibly innocent? Also, why would there only be a list for priests? Why not a list for accused public school teachers having sex with students? Once you open the bottle, its hard to put the genie back in. I think this bottle should stay closed (and delete this list).NancyHeise 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Corvus cornix 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with similar lists up for AfD at this time even were anonymity possible to everyone's satisfaction and the inclusion of people merely accused dealt with, listing every person of a particular type who has committed a particular crime just isn't encyclopedic - it's the basis of original research and does nothing to reflect the significant opinions of experts on the subject. We're not a database of cases from which to build theories or launch campaigns. -- SiobhanHansa 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP nightmare. Might work as a category, per above concerns about 'accused' v 'charged' v 'convicted'. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses and prune list. -- Alan Liefting talk 19:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Suggest that interested authors limit themselves to: List of Roman Catholic priests convicted of sex offenses --SmokeyJoe 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Rename to List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses and prune list.? -- Alan Liefting talk 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The current article contains potentially libellous material that should not be available in a history. Also, I mean “convicted” not “charged”. Someone can be charged on the basis of false testimony. We can wait. Wikipedia is not current affairs. --SmokeyJoe 05:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "accused" to "convicted" and trim the list. Reinis^talk 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many other lists exist in WP. What is wrong with a list of articles about priests who have been accused of sex offences? -- Alan Liefting talk 08:30, 15 October 2007 (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.