Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vatican conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Vatican conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm in two minds about this article. Part of me says "Gosh, this is notable and verifiable" and part says "Even if it is, this article is a prime example of synthesised original research." Even if it's intended just as a list it still requires references, doubtless all of which can be supplied. I know we'll get the pro/anti religion/Roman Catholicism/Conspiracy Theory folk discussing the bejasus out of this from a pro/anti religion/Roman Catholicism/Conspiracy Theory viewpoint, but it would be far better to discuss it from its technical merits as an article. After all, the theories etc exist. I'm concerned about the synthesised OR aspect. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Keep. I've got many sources I'd like to add and these are among the most famous Conspiracy theories. Also, there are many more articles on related conspiracy theories. ADM (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure you are familiar with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, though it is rather a harsh name! My concern is absolutely not the citability of the individual items as my nomination says. I have taken it as read that they can (probably) all be referenced. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite close to being exhaustive, and it is not original at all. These are things that everyone has heard about, that all may know well already. ADM (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that the article synthesises original research. That is the rationale for my nomination. I dispute none of your other points and never have. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the sources DO reach the same conclusion, therefore it is not original research. It would like to ask you to read the article Antisemitic canard, it is very much based on this previous work. ADM (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my nomination, I am in some doubt. I suggest we let this run, after which you will have a pretty definitive outcome. Our community usually makes wise decisions especially when an individual is unwise (and I have been both wise and unwise all my life). I'm happy to be proven wrong as well as right. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not the kind of synthesis that the drafters of WP:SYNTH had in mind. This is actually closer to a disambiguation page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear case. Notability in spades. Needs cites to be sure, but that is a mechanical exercise and not a valid reason for deletion. SYN? Not in the NOR sense at all. Collect (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to "Conspiracy theories involving the Vatican" Wow I had no idea there were so many! Steve Dufour (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article clearly needs better sourcing, it is a good way to organize info on the various notable conspiracy theories. Edward321 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll disagree with everyone on here and say Delete. No references, too much information to reference, and just an awful article. Further, as each item on there appears to have its own article, this seems better as a category. Timneu22 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increase to super strong delete. This is the first I've heard of WP:COATRACK; there is no better example than this article. Timneu22 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but only if substantial sourcing is added. The topic, and some of the conspiracies mentioned, are clearly notable and have been the subject of many books, films, etc. But it needs sourcing placed fairly quickly. I'm going to break my own rule here and state that I'll even support renomination of the sourcing isn't added within the next couple of weeks. 23skidoo (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Article is a classic example of WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK, created and maintained by one user, please read the lead: "They usually involve the Pope or his sinister curialists, typically jesuits, trying to dominate the world in a ruthless enterprise of secular power-wielding. Other conspiracies will involve dubious papal interventions in the history of Christianity in order to conceal or hide allegedly secret information." Any sourced information can be saved into Criticism of Catholicism.--J.Mundo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete "Clearly needs better sourcing" is an understatement. Don't even bother to put up an article with this many accusations unless you can tell us where you heard them. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Could stand better sourcing, but its a legit topic, and problems with POV are for cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- All conspiracy theories violate NPOV, original research, etc, yet there are still plenty of them wikipedia (see RFK, JFK). A google search produces many book/web results, so this is notable and verifiable. And even if those sources are synthesized original research, keep in mind that these are conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsdrinktea (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is that argument not preempted by WP:WAX?Simon Dodd (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per J.Mundo.Simon Dodd (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as part unsourcable, part better treated in other articles, and part WP:BLP. Also, the novels seem oddly out of place. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If only for the lack of references. Some of these conspiracies look like they were made up. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]