Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Francis Ridsdale


 * 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. It has been suggested that borderline AfDs which result in a "no consensus" closure may be deleted by default, but I don't think that's appropriate here. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerry Francis Ridsdale

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia already has plenty of articles on notorious clerical child abusers like this one. See for example Oliver O'Grady, Sean Fortune and John Geoghan. It makes perfect to keep this one if we can keep all the other ones, since it would at least be more logically consistent than not keeping it. ADM (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Perhaps those articles ought to be deleted as well. NW ( Talk ) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reason given above. james gibbon  20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that the most recent event in the article is a conviction from 2006, how is WP:NOT involved?


 * Strong delete. It doesn't matter if he was arrested for abusing children, once, twice, or thrice. This is still a completely negative hatchet job of a BLP where the only sources that we could use for a biography center on his child abuse. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." NW ( Talk ) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be a matter of interpretation, but while that passage would clearly rule out, say, the teenager who briefly became notorious for holding a house party that wrecked his parents house, it is possible that if interpreted widely enough, the passage could cover any convicted criminal whose actions cover one crime or series of crimes (as in this case). For instance, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Fred West and Rosemary West and Steve Wright (serial killer) might be deleted if that passage is intepreted broadly enough. I'm trying to figure out how to interpret that passage.Autarch (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: we shouldn't delete a biography just because it depicts its subject in a negative light, if all the available sources do the same. It should be little surprise that biographies of people convicted of sexual offences against children tend to be highly negative. However, due to the infamy of such cases, such people also tend to be pretty notable - as is the case here. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - Per NW and Ironholds. This is a marginal BLP, and fails WP:BLP1E. Nuke plz. Coffee  //  have a cup  //  ark  // 21:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The story appears to have continued beyond the 2006 conviction: and, plus he was cited in the recent book "Dangerous to Know: An Australasian Crime Compendium," by James Morton and Susanna Lobez . Warrah (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All three of those articles are still connected to the underlying sexual assault; therefore the article still fails WP:BLP1E, as "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of [this] event". NW ( Talk ) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As NW said, all of the citations about this man, are in the context of one event. This is a pretty easy call on BLP1E. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article now covers the 1994 conviction as well as the 2006 one - there were 46 charges of abuse of 21 victims in the first case, with 35 charges of abuse of ten victims in the second. Also police were sufficiently concerned about his behaviour to investigate his bishops' knowledge in Operation Arcadia.Autarch (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable criminal, has received extensive media coverage for multi-year child-raping escapade. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Normally I'd cite BLP1E and argue for deletion but in this case, since there are multiple convictions, and his bishop got investigated, I can see how this might be more than just one event. I'm convincable the other way but that's my thinking at the moment. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep - highly notable as a criminal, and not a case of WP:BLP1E as he's notable for several offences over an extended period of time. The news coverage of him stretched from the early 90s up to 2008, which suggests to me this isn't a case of a transient news story, but genuine notability. Robofish (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and NW. WP shouldn't become a sex-offender register. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:31, 1 December 2009 (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.