Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay popes


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. I was slightly surprised by this on reading the article (although certainly much of it is of tangential relevance at best), but it is essentially unchanged from its state prior to the AfD nomination, and so it seems very clear that people are not persuaded by the material that is included. -Splash talk 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gay popes
This article itself states that it's only a collection of unproven rumors. In fact, these rumors are not only unproven, but unprovable. Is there any point to having article in an encyclopedia that consists of such content as "I think such and such is gay, but I have no proof?". -- Jbamb 14:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Logophile 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- unless reliable sources are included. - Longhair 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. James084 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have a serious problem with the name of the article, as well as "gay bishops".  Why not "Homosexuality in the priesthood"?  But at least gay bishops has some semblance of an editing team and sources.  If any "gay pope" information is verifiable and well-sourced, it will reappear on gay bishops, since all popes are bishops.  As it stands, the whole article looks more rumor than history. --Mareino 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP not a place for rumour and libel, it is an online encyclopædia. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|25px|UK]] 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable, speculation. -- MisterHand 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, et al. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if there are verifiable ones then you can merge them into the main pope article. --Snakes 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into something like Homosexuality in the priesthood per Mareino. This "article" seems to be an agenda in search of an audience. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Speculative. Honbicot 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable speculation. -- Vary | Talk 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Good subject with plenty of valid sources to draw on. -- JJay 02:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the article can be fortified to meet WP:V. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if sourced by closing, delete if not (apologies to closing admin for conditional vote). Youngamerican 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable, speculation. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 05:05Z 
 * Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. but a great name for a band! BL   kiss the lizard  06:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — the issue here is not whether the rumours can be proven, but whether they are notable and well-documented. Skimming through the article, it seems a number of contemporaneous historical sources refer to popes as sodomites.  Surely these accusations deserve a cataloguing and discussion, if only to debunk them.  —Psychonaut 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Psychonaut. -- jaredwf 11:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Keep (2nd choice). While doubtless interesting, and in the case of Julius and a few others certainly discussed amongst professional historians, it would be better to place the discussion in the articles about each pope themselves, with maybe a category Category:Popes suspected to be gay or something. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge as per user Mareino. --kingboyk 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and article's own opening sentence --Ajdz 22:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and -Ril-. &mdash; mark &#9998; 11:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously. Eusebeus 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While the subject matter may be based mostly on rumors, how could such subject matter not be based on rumors? If so-stated (meaning "rumors have circulated that ..."), then why should such an article be deleted?  Certainly there have been efforts throughout church history to repress such rumors, but that in itself doesn't indicate that the rumors were false.  I think the article should be kept, but that it should be made clear that such information is (probably by its very nature) not always verifiable.  I also believe that the title should be changed to something like "Popes Suspected of Homosexual Activity". 21:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- unless reliable sources are included. --Untruth 23:06, 9 January 2006 (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.