Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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. As several commentators have noted, the article probably should be retitled, but the appropriate forum for that discussion is the article's talk page, so they didn't even attempt to form consensus here as to what new title would be better. GRBerry 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This article needs to, at best be merged into Satanic ritual abuse and or False allegation of child sexual abuse and at worst deleted altogether due to it's pure speculation. It admits to being pure speculation at several points throughout the article and I feel it is simply not necessary. This is not a personal nomination, it is professional. There has also been much argument over the name of the article which has been causing a lot of problems with a specific user. Carter | Talk to me 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Article is well-referenced and it is a notable series of events. There is nothing speculative about what is recounted in the article; it takes no stance on the truth or falsity of the allegations that were investigated by church and government bodies. (A number of editors are working on the talk page towards consensus for a name change; a problem with the name is not even close to being a good reason to delete. The discussion/consensus process there should probably be permitted to run its course.) Nominator appears to have a long-standing problem with article's existence, having nominated it for speedy deletion (!) shortly after it was created, as well as performing a number of sudden and dramatic moves of the page that were performed without consensus in the middle of discussions aimed at gaining a consensus for a move. Nomination is possibly motivated by WP:COI, since nom's user page indicates he is a member of church that is involved. Snocrates 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[See talk page for discussion on Snocrates's opinion.]

Keep (creator) per Snocrates. The problems with the article on the talk page have largely involved concerns with the name of the article, not with its notability. I suggest keeping and then let consensus determine the name, per Snocrates. At time of creation, nominator accused me of anti-Mormon bias, but article content was reviewed by several disinterested parties, including an admin, and was found to be largely free of any POV problems. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy states "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." I believe that this is exactly what is happening here. As Carter states at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&action=edit&section=14 : "Snocrates, while many conclusions can be drawn all the time, not many conclusions other than the LDS church was involved in SRA can be drawn from this title. I've chosen to use something to end the discussion once and for all." Carter is the one proposing the page deletion. I agree with Snocrates "Article is well-referenced and it is a notable series of events. There is nothing speculative about what is recounted in the article; it takes no stance on the truth or falsity of the allegations that were investigated by church and government bodies."Abuse truth 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the main S.R.A. article. The references do not prove the validity of the allegations, so the title is inappropriate. The article states that the claims were not validated. The reference by Loftus in fact casts doubt on the whole "recovered memory" movement. Edison 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference by Loftus should be counterbalanced. See:

Summary of Research Examining the Prevalence of Full or Partial Dissociative Amnesia for Traumatic Events

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/prev.html

Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html

This URL has archives of corroborated cases of recovered memory

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/index.html

Memory & Abuse: The Recovered Memory Controversy

http://kspope.com/memory/index.php Abuse truth 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Strongly agree with Edison here. These are the main points I have been trying to highlight. Carter | Talk to me 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete or merge with False allegation of child sexual abuse, which would be more reflective of events presented in the article. The title is an excellent example of yellow journalism, but not something that should be permitted to continue on Wikipedia. There is not dispute about content of the article! We have a main article for false allegations and this one is best suited for it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[See talk page for discussion on Storm Rider's opinion.]

Merge or Rename: I'd prefer that this article be merged into another article, but the current consensus is going against this. There is a developing consensus for the name of this article and should be allowed to run its course. — Val42 08:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename. While noteworthy, I question the need for an independent article. Title should somehow addressed the fact that this is alleged. Doczilla 09:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge per Doczilla. If it is not merged, the name must change to reflect the fact that it is alleged. --AliceJMarkham 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and well-referenced (16 footnotes, mostly WP:RS), as well as different from other churches' scandals, and NPOV - the summary says it all. Problems with specific footnotes, content, etc., belongs on the talk page, not at AfD. Admins: There is no consensus here per WP:SNOW; allow this AfD nom to continue. Bearian 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and well-referenced per Bearian and Snocrates. Appears to be a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of AFD. I can understand the desire for a "rename", but that can be carried out via consensus through the normal move proposal procedures, which appear to be well underway and making some progress at the talk page. SESmith 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a fine article. The statements are neutral, and backed by multiple, reliable sources. Further, statements that officials have "...never been able to independently verify memories of satanic ritual abuse" seem to make it clear that the allegations were never proven. I also agree that the name should change. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP* The references are solid, and very helpful. The article is relatively calm, given the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.239.2 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and edit/move I agree that the topic is noteworthy and shouldn't disappear, but the title is very misleading. I had never heard of this topic previous to seeing the listed title; after reading the article, I can say that the title conveyed a much different content than what is actually there. The title leads one to believe that the church participates in or condones satanic ritual abuse. A similarly misleading title would be "Serial murders and the US government." Titled so because citizens have committed serial murders. Also, the article requires refining to support more of it's claims and remove some bias. Hopefully edits in that direction aren't interfered with. The article implies a connection with a greater movement of accusations in the US; wouldn't this article and the topic in general be better served by combining them? --Wikiquin 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no, it won't be templated out of existence kthx - David Gerard 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Wikiquin. I can't say I have any brilliant naming ideas, but hopefully that can be resolved via talk page. :) — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is solidly referenced and is notable. Work to rename on talk page. Ubi Terrarum 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Good article, terrible title.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:44, 12 November 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.