Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave


 * 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 was   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, unmaintainable and unverifiable list. There is no clear definition for the term papabile, which means that there are no inclusion or exclusion criteria for this listing. Whether a name is included or not just depends on the subjective opinion of some news outlet and (even worse, as it is a breach of WP:OR) the perception of the respective editor. FoxyOrange (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing but rumors about who might have been elected pope. In reality, no one other than the cardinals themselves know who was actually a legitimate candidate, making this problematic for WP:V.  Had some of this been referenced, I would say that some material could be merged into Papal conclave, 2005 as "people rumored in the media to have been papabili" but there's nothing worth keeping.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per grapedape only the cardinals know. It's not like there's a shortlist announced. In anycase I can't remember the UK media throwing too many names around.GAtechnical (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I can. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep if sourced. If properly sourced, this would not be much different than an article like Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates - a list of persons considered by people with some knowledge of the matter to be likely candidates to an important office. Certainly this would be of enduring interest to some. bd2412  T 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep if properly sourced --JB82 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't keep poorly sourced "speculation" lists here on Wikipedia, this is a perfect violation of WP:NOTNEWS Secret account 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete speculative. What's the point of maintaining this list after the event?  -- Y not? 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or probable merge to Papal conclave, 2005. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - utterly unsourced, and a bad idea in any case as it was entirely speculative. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is completely unsourced speculation -- basically crystal-ballery applied to the past. Papal conclave, 2005 mentions a few candidates who supposedly received votes at this conclave, citing published sources although there is no way to know how accurate those published sources' informants were. But that's about as much speculation as I'm willing to accept. Also, for some reason, the list has continued to be updated with cardinals who have died or turned 80 years old in the years following the 2005 conclave having their names displayed against a gray background -- although that would have been irrelevant in 2005. (If that were kept up, by 2025 every single cardinal on the list would have his name with a gray background.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2013 (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.