Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boniface Ramsey


 * 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. Tone 13:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Boniface Ramsey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Boniface Ramsey is not notable, aside from the fact that he sent a number of letters to Catholic bishops warning them about the predations of Theodore McCarrick. Ramsey's involvement in this saga is documented in detail in the Theodore Edgar McCarrick article, and also appears in the articles Gabriel Montalvo Higuera, Leonardo Sandri, Seán Patrick O'Malley. Ramsey's role in the McCarrick saga is notable, and has been adequately documented in these articles. But Ramsey is not notable otherwise, and therefore having his own article is unnecessary. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 06:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep-Although the nominator has, along with a handful of others, made extremely valuable contributions to Wikipedia regarding the abuse scandal in the Church, I respectfully disagree with the belief that this article should be deleted. Individuals can be discussed widely in other articles, but if their importance rises to a certain level, then it can still become necessary for them to have their own articles. In Ramsey's case, I think it does. He has been the single most important figure in blowing the whistle on McCarrick in the Church for over two decades. While his activities in reporting McCarrick are discussed elsewhere, especially the McCarrick article, they could be covered in greater detail here than that article may allow. It would also be helpful to include personal background information so that the reader can better understand who he is and why he took on such a role. Trying to do that at any of the articles would go beyond their scope. The article should be expanded, and I feel that this is a better course than deleting it. I might be able to help with expansion should the article be kept, but I'll have to see how my schedule looks. Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This article could certainly use fixing too. 192.139.232.230 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * redirect back to section in McCarrick article. This is not a biography; it's just a one sentence identification followed by a partial narration of the larger train of events. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep has enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't, and his role in the scandal is not a biography. At present what we have is a name and a position, and that's pretty much it. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep His role in the developing scandal is very important. Considering the New York Times Magazine had the story on McCarrick sexually assaulting and abusing seminarians in 2012 and killed the story for political and cultural reasons, there is a lot more to what is going on her than has been well reported.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG, and I'm not entirely sure what "is not a biography" means when it comes to specific Wikipedia policy. There are plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that refer to why a person is notable and do not include a myriad of other details; the lack of sheer quantity of content in an entry isn't a reason for deletion. Isingness (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.