Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Pope

 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 delete, though someones redirected to Homosexual bishop. &mdash; Xezbeth 19:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like a conclusion to delete the redirect. There is nothing of value in the article history - since this was never anything but a crude attack page. Nothing could reasonably link here. It should be deleted. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 05:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Gay Pope
Speculation and innuendo, created in bad faith as a more subtle way of calling Pope Benedict XVI gay than engaging in crude vandalism of his article, which would be quickly reverted. You only have to look at the line: "The current Pope is Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor was Pope John Paul II. They were known to be very good friends." This is also original research, and not encyclopedic. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 12:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed this line. Whether or not the article is deleted, this sort of innuendo has no place in Wikipedia. Shoaler 13:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was made into a redirect to homosexual bishop several times, before VfD, but the anon keeps writing own essay, despite being warned at talk page. I am making into a redirect and protecting now. The text has nothing new. If you disagree, you may look into the history.
 * (Speedy) Delete, at least one of WP:NOR, WP is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, if not all three. --bainer 13:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article says: "Whilst some people may be very narrow minded and disagree with this article it contains nothing but fact and further research is being conducted." Yes, original research. Fie on thou!!! -- 8^D gab 13:02, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
 * Delete--reads like original research from a Jack Chick pamphlet. Meelar (talk) 13:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is just "_____ IS GAY" vandalism in disguise. - Omegatron 13:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speculation and innuendo. Schoolboy stuff. Delete DJ Clayworth 13:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't think of any way this article could be worthwhile. Shoaler 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Anti-gay vandalism. - UtherSRG 13:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given by nominator. No source citations. No "X said Y about Z" where X = some notable person or authoritative source, Y = "is gay", and Z = popes in general or some pope in particular. "It is entirely possible and probable... Just how many... is not known... it is now more likely than ever that there recently has been or currently is a gay pope." If you remove the nonfactual sentences there is literally nothing left in the article.  Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge While probably a vandal article to cause a stir, it might be interesting to start an article called Homosexuality in the Church and merge this info into it. -Husnock 14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There already is and article "homosexual bishop". You may want to expand it and rename accordingly. Mikkalai 18:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete although it might be true, WP is not the place for speculative articles. -- Wegge 18:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to feed a troll who doesn't listen reason, by a VfD. Mikkalai 14:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Mikkalai, this isn't about feeding a troll, it's about removing a very offensive article. It MUST GO, whether the troll goes with it or not.
 * Delete. All the reasons said above. This is probably VERY offensive to Catholics. Or, at least, if I was Catholic I know *I* would be offended! So, yeah, deleted. I'd say homosexual bishop could one day share a similar VfD fate as cruel editors could word it in a very offensive way... Master Thief Garrett 22:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when was offensiveness against Catholics criteria for deletion? - Omegatron 23:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point! I said "probably", but even so I didn't quite word it correctly. I'm not worried about it sounding offensive, but I'm just saying that someone may take such offense that they vandalise or start an edit war to get rid of the content. I mean, if you started an article about, say, rapidly increasing gay suicide rates or something (potentially) objectionable like that, there'd be bound to be someone offended by it and would want it taken care of. So do Catholics count in the same "Political Correctness protect-o-bubble" as ethnic/sexual-orientation groups, or not? EDIT: I'm not saying that term to offend anyone/any group, it's just the briefest wording to explain how those groups are protected. Just thought I'd clear that up. Master Thief Garrett 23:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted because it's just stupid vandalism; not because it's potentially offensive to someone. We'd have to delete a lot if we cared about potentially offending individual people.  :-)  Wikipedia may contain objectionable content - Omegatron 00:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * As the first person to request deletion, I say redirect to Homosexual bishop. If someone keeps adding speculative/uncited material, take it to RFC or protection. Gazpacho 11:20, 23 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.