Talk:Vatican pornography conspiracy

This page needs a few links
I guess this could do with a few links to blogs, or bulletin boards which carry it. I shall try to do this when I get time.

Cialovesyou 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Blogs and bulletin boards aren't legitimate references. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree. Thats the whole point. This accusation has become one of the "archtypal" conspiracy theories, all on the basis of gossip on the internet, and perhaps other places. All the article claims is that it is an unsubstantiated accusation that is circling the net. The idea of the Vatican cardinals being given a key to the porn collection when they get a red hat is obviously ridiculous. But the article makes this quite clear, without infringing NPOV. The article simply serves to allow a reader to know what is meant by the "Vatican Porn Conspiracy", and it does this.

The bulletin board reference is quite appropriate. All it shows is that such a term exists.

Cialovesyou 04:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think the Snopes and Straight Dope links are legitimate references, but policy is extremely clear that only *reliable* sources are acceptable. Blogs (except in extreme circumstances) and bulletin boards don't qualify. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for deletion
I believe this topic is worthy of a serious treatment, so I've made some badly-needed edits & removed the PROD notice Philwelch put on the main page. However, it is only to provide some time for interested parties to make something of this article. I'd like a period of seven days to be given to this article, during which time more improvements need to be made. If no substantial edits are made, then yours truly will list this article in WP:AfD for deletion, & I fully expect that the folks there will likely vote to delete it before the voting period has ended. The clock is ticking: please get to work & make something of this opportunity. -- llywrch 02:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of the original article. After discussion with collegues and due consideration, I now believe the article should be removed. It is clear this is an "urban legend" as one editor put it, but hardly a candidate for an encyclopedia entry. I vote therefore, delete.

Cialovesyou 11:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Per the points brought up on the AfD, I vote that the content be merged with Vatican Library, with this being a redirect. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. — Philwelch t 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)