Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005


 * 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 no consensus I took a few extra steps in closing this AfD, including doing a google news search which showed many possible sources. If people in the discussion had added any sources I would have closed this as a straight keep. It is unhelpful for people to call for keeping based on the existence of sourcing and not attempt to dig up the sources at all. Furthermore, I think that this may make more sense as a subsection of Papal conclave, 2005 and so a merge may be in order. JoshuaZ 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I think the title says it all really. The total lack of references is a violation of Verifiability policy Tim! 09:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The subject is notable, as anyone who wasn't on Mars in 2005 can attest. The article needs sources ASAP, which should be quite easy. I notified the author. --Targeman 12:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with Targeman. Subject is notable and worthwhile; article is reasonably well-written. However if not sourced it can hardly stay. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Targeman. The article is well written and anyone that was following it at the time will recall reading sources giving such information. It's a case of finding and referencing those sources now! KTC 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is little changed since Jtdirl created it over two years ago, meaning he or she would be a good bet for sources, but given the way Jtdirl left, I wouldn't count on that. I trust that it is accurate without the sources, but I'm not familiar with the speculation the press was publishing then, and the assurances of a few anonymous editors on Wikipedia are not very reassuring to the casual reader of this article who isn't familiar with the excellent record of the person who created it. So what I propose is moving it to a talk subpage of Papal conclave, 2005 (effectively deleting it) and leaving a note at Talk:Papal conclave, 2005 that the problem was sources, and anyone who adds them is welcome to restore the article to mainspace.--Chaser - T 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as obsolete WP:CRYSTAL ball. Articles about speculation are inherently problematic. The article contains comments such as "A Latin American pope is a strong possibility" to be elected in 2005. I have no doubt that we could find articles from 2005 saying that there was a strong possibility that a pope from Latin America would be elected. However, we know that, in fact, the pope elected was not from Latin America, and the only way we could prove that any Latin Americans were considered strong candidates would be for one of the cardinals to violate the oath of secrecy. So unless and until that happens, there could be no reliable sources to say that "A Latin American pope was a strong possibility in 2005". --Metropolitan90 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously fails WP:NOR.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't obviously fail NOR. It is known that there were a lot of secondary sources carrying that information at the time. You can argue those does not constitute reliable sources as Metropolitan90 had, but it's not OR. -- KTC 09:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Targeman. Mathmo Talk 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sad (actually rather more than sad) that Jtdirl is now so pissed off with the whole WP project that his response to Targeman's courteous notification of this AFD was "Who gives a fuck?" I think he could have once been relied on for some references, but probably not now. I feel there is useful (and encyclopædic) material here, so I go for Weak keep but tagged as (curiously, there is no such tag at present, even though those are the stated grounds for the AFD). It needs anyway to be rephrased to reflect the fact that the conclave is now in the past, and the issue should be revisited at a later date. (Chaser's proposal is also viable.) Vilĉjo 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're looking for Template:Refimprove. KTC 09:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, agree with . Another possibility is that much of the article could be moved over to a generic "speculation about any pope" article. Kingdon 02:27, 11 August 2007 (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.