Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC sexual 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 no consensus. I hate to do this given that there definitely seems to be consensus to do something...but there is no clear consensus on what big step should be taken. It's clear that there are likely too many articles here, but it's unclear which ones should be kept. The key question that needs to be answered is whether or not there is a legitimate topic collecting the various cases together, and, if there is, whether these specific cases "stand alone" or are better covered in an even the even wider BBC controversies article. I don't think this kind of question can be answered in an AfD. I recommend starting an RfC on one of the article's talk pages and adding a notifcation to all of the related pages, and seeing if you can get consensus that way. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC sexual abuse cases

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

The article duplicates material already contained in other articles, notably Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children, BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal, and to a lesser extent North Wales child abuse scandal. The article was originally created in good faith by a new user, User:Jstevewiki, and was promoted through the WP:AfC process, being moved into mainspace here by User:Ritchie333. No attempt was made to contact the editors of overlapping articles through article talk pages. As well as highlighting a flaw in the AfC system, the existence of this article is unnecessary because it duplicates existing information. I've edited it - removing unreliable or poor sources, correcting grammar and factual accuracy, etc. - but I still fail to see the reason for this article existing given that several other articles cover the same topics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without wishing to argue for or against this particular article, the nomination reason does appear weak. It is entirely legitimate for an article to give an overview of a large and complex topic (say, the Second World War) even though all the sub-topics are covered by other articles. Indeed, when a topic is important enough to be covered by several sub-articles, it is absolutely necessary to have an umbrella article to cover the whole topic and tie all the parts together. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but is there actually anything that holds together the different threads in this article, other than they are sexual abuse cases that, in some way, involve the BBC? Is it actually a single topic worthy of an article? The threads are brought together, in any case, at the Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies articles - which themselves overlap each other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One argument for treating them in a single article would be that there was something in the culture or administration of the BBC that permitted sexual abuse (the referenced Andrew O'Hagan article hints at this). An alternative argument would be simply the number of well-documented cases of abuse. I'm not certain this topic needs a separate article, but it could be viewed as a breakout from BBC controversies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - I would be inclined to think that both Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children and BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal could be merged into the the subject article (that which is not duplicate information) with {{main| tags in both articles. Agree it shouldn't exist in three different places but I think a standalone article (given the size it might eventually get to after inquiries, etc) is probably worthwhile. The other cases, I think, are different. Cross-references are fine but they should probably also have their own articles. Thoughts? Stalwart111 00:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal (or vice versa - but with that title). Prune the sections in Criticism of the BBC#Sexual abuse of children and BBC controversies#October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal. Savile appears to have been a preditory paedophile. There are also allegations that he may have procured vulnerable girls for others, and that certain managers are guilty of compounding his offence, but that would only apply if they knew and did nothing (or perhaps were wilfully blind). We are getting far too much in the way of duplication. It is appropriate to have a short summary in one article with a {{main|}} template to link to one more detailed article. I am not sure that this belongs in the "criticism" article at all, as this is more about allegations of bias. Furhtermore "criticism" sections are liable to be ATTACK or COATHANGER sections that give a minor subject attention completely out of proportion to their importance. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing prevents from having a review article and sub-articles on individual events. Some degree of content overlap is inevitable in such cases. Fix it if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, there are multiple cases, but the BBC controversies article is perfectly suited to list them. The cases include:

That is at least 3 cases. So WP needs a list. But WP doesn't need three articles to list these cases:

The existing article BBC controversies is the best place to list the sex abuse allegations. --Noleander (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sounds like merging to me, but the content will be lost if deleted (unless this is completely a content fork). The better way is to mark articles for suggested merging and discuss at article talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't yet know whether there is any linkage between these (and other) cases. It may be entirely coincidental that these people happened to work for the BBC - a very large organisation - in which case there is even less justification for this article. If they are shown to have acted in concert, or as part of a culture of sexual harassment and abuse within the BBC, that would be a different matter - but linking the cases under the umbrella heading of "BBC... cases" gives the appearance of being just more BBC-bashing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 11:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: Suggestions are kind of all over the place; I kind of get the impression the best coarse of action is probably a redirect or a disambiguation (indeed, both delete votes read kinda like that to me), but I don't want to supervote. Wily D 11:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best course. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too. Wily D 09:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's rough! Stalwart111 10:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - yes, that sounds wise. I've read the whole discussion and find all the arguments sensible. It does feel excessive to have 3 articles covering the ground, and "...cases" does imply a linkage where no evidence for such exists. Therefore BBC controversies seems the right merge target, leaving a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dont see an issue of just keeping this article. This is a major and complicated sequence of events that justifies several articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still say merge -- I do not think any one seriously suggest that the BBC was promoting sexual abuse. However, allegations have been made against a few very high profile employees (or contractors). What we have at present is a mess. I would support the idea of having, with appropriate links via "main templates":

A general article on the subject,
An article on each alleged perpetrator - for Saville in a separate article; for the otehrs perhpas in their BIO article.
A brief section in the "Criticism of BBC" article (which will need to be defended against those who want to expand it to an inappropriate extent.

We cannot expect the closing ADMIN to undertake all this editing. Can we accept this (or somethign similar)? If so, Can we have a volunteer to undertake the editing to the new organisation, once this proposal is accepted. The AFD will probably need to stay open until this is implemented. When it is, it may be that one or more article will be redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 17 December 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.