Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.

Not notable in his own right. Merge anything of interest into the articles on his sons. RickK 22:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Both of them? I realise there is policy on family members that applies, but mightn't this one usefully run on a bit? Charles Matthews 19:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This vfd was placed by anon user and I see it as simple vandalism of the article to cause a stir. I say we should not take this vote seriously as Benedict XVIs father has been in the medai extensively over the past two days. I took off the tag, but will differ to an Admin if they really think that is a deletable article. -Husnock 19:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • FOLLOWUP: I saw the anon user might have been a legit person. Thats fine and Im sorry for taking it out. If so, the tag should go back in. We just have SO many problems with anons going through adding VFD tags and Dispute notices that they are often taken as vandalism. My statements about this man stand on why he should ahve his article, with the situation with Adolf Hitler's relatives a perfect example. The Hitler pages lists relatives down to the half nephew and all of them have articles. If this article gets deleted then, by rights, all of those would have to go as well. I vote KEEP. -Husnock 20:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not AT ALL vandalism, thank you. We frequently have votes for deletion of non-notable relatives. RickK 22:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I vote Keep for now, since a merge later is an easy option. But I think it can be argued either way, so I disagree with above the comment that this doesn't need a vote. Charles Matthews 20:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's already so much information here that to merge it into either or both of his son's articles would detract from their quality. Better to link to the father and cover it once, in one place; there's also the likelihood that more information will be added here, making the proposed merges yet more cumbersome. - Nunh-huh 20:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Georg's article under a title Biography of Pope Benedict XVI; if it's eventually decided that Georg would have qualified for an article on his own, this would probably still be an appropriate place to shift material from the Pope's main article. MisfitToys 22:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article can stand on its own. Notable person, esp. now. I agree with Charles Matthews that a later merger is likely, but that would only be appropriate after this topic matures. -Casito⇝Talk 22:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough - and otherwise, he would have to be developed on two separate pages, might lead to inconsistent results. -- 8^D ^gab 22:59, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pope Benedict XVI. No evidence has been presented that he is independently notable. (Georg's article should probably also be merged but that's a different discussion.) Rossami (talk) 23:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Quit silliness. Georg Ratzinger is a famous musician, who directed a world-famous choir, the eldest in the world, for many years, has made numerous famous recordings, and is a prelate in the Catholic Church. --83 unsigned comment by anon user:83.109.158.50
    • That is, of course, a judgment call. However, he held that position for quite a long time and until his brother was a strong candidate for elevation no one considered Georg noteworthy enough to create an article. WP:MUSIC wasn't really written with classical music in mind but it's interesting to note that none of the inclusion criteria appear to apply. You are free to disagree with me but please be civil and fact-based when doing so. You should also sign your comments using ~~~~. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutrality^talk 23:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is well written, and I personally think that because of some efforts of this gentleman, the Pope's thinking and actions will forever shape our world. Zscout370 23:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article makes more than a satisfactory case for notability.23skidoo 00:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If what is on the page is true, I would want to find this information on its own page--even if the page was no longer than what it is. Apparently, the issues of the father are different from the issues of the son. And the examination of issues about pro- or anti-Nazi expression is clearer to me on two different pages in this case. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable father. Klonimus 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Pope Benedict XVI, and add redirect. Not inherently notable on his own. Megan1967 04:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Given the interest in Pope Benedict's background and inaccurate coverage suggesting his background was a Nazi one. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's likely to be more than enough material published to make this worthwhile. Material on family life is otherwise likely to clog up Pope Ben. Slac speak up! 05:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with an article about the Pope's father. — JIP | Talk 07:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as relative of celeb. Radiant_* 07:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's notable and it's good that we have an article on him. However, I'm concerned that the article cites no sources whatsoever. It even says things like "various sources state" and "the majority of media sources later made it very clear". Can we have some references then please, otherwise this looks like original research. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable plus merging makes articles harder to find. N-Man^talk 11:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Paryly because that Pope Benedict XVI article will expand to a stage that more articles have to be created to condense information. Also, who can provide the birthdate of his Ratzinger, Sr.? Tan 22:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per reasons listed by Tan. He has two notable sons, so I'd relax the "family members" rule over that. However, if he were just an uncle or something, I would delete. Keep this one. --Idont Havaname 15:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm not too familiar with the family member policy, but we must consider that he may become notable / more notable after his death, and then the fact that you have two sons in Wickipedia; My biggest concern is that if we merge now, we will find ourselves de-merging in the future -- It's simply too soon to make a definitive decision unsigned comment by anon user:138.88.41.120
• Keep. He might not have been notable a week ago but he's certainly notable now. -JCarriker 03:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Lochaber 08:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Greaser 11:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is now the father of the pope, one of the most visible figures in the world. This makes him inherently notable. A merge would just clutter an article that is now experiencing a huge number of edits.Bratsche^{talk random} 21:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep - his son is the Holy Father. Oliver Keenan 10:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- he's the popes' old man. - Longhair | Talk 11:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Parents of famous people are appropriate article subjects, as their influence on their offspring's opinions is a matter of historical significance. Keep. --Centauri 09:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is crazy. We don't need articles on every famous person's relatives. Gamaliel 09:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.