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

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]

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]
Did my intro while nominating not mean anything? I made it very clear it was NOT WP:COI. Who cares what church I belong to? This article needs to be merged and or deleted altogether. Speculation is ridiculous. You are not assuming good faith. 'Nomination is possibly motivated by WP:COI' is rude and speculative and this is not the place for it. I nominated this article because it was suggested to me that I do. Not for any other reason, besides I suppose my own desire to see this article go the way of so many other POV and biased articles that make allegations only in an attempt to make a group or organization look poorly. Carter | Talk to me 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]

If there is no concern over the content of the article, but only with the title of the article, proposing deletion is superfluous and not appropriate. Proposals for moves/renaming/merging are not properly made through the AFD process. And if you have no concern over the content of the article, why is your vote for deleting unless it is being used as a means of censoring? Snocrates 05:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is concern over the content of the article. The part about the title wasn't mentioned until the last little part of the nomination. Thanks for trying to make the AfD nomination 'superfluous'. I added the above mentioned article to the options of merging in the nomination. Carter | Talk to me 15:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - The article is an attempt at sythesis to force a conclusion where facts are not in evidence. Not one editor has demonstrated why the LDS church is involved in this topic except that a memo was written by an LDS authority, one without any expertise to produce a reputable conclusion. I personally do not disagree with the "facts", but the conclusion being drawn. I strongly believe a merge into False allegations is the better path. The memo is already highlighted in the Glenn L. Pace article. When there are so many different things wrong with an article an AfD is the best place to go. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]