Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Gallen Group


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

St. Gallen Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The discussion group is real and has been covered, but the question is whether or not it is notable enough for its own article: my !vote is obviously no. The essential claim to notability is that they formed a faction within two papal conclaves (2005/2013) to elect the current Pope and in opposition to Pope Benedict XVI: this is essentially a conspiracy theory that would be common in virtually any papal election. They're secretive by nature, so no one knows what goes on as they are occurring and as of at least the 20th century, cardinals cannot actually reveal what occurred in the conclave, so the existence of any sourcing on it is by its very nature an unreliable source. We effectively have here a conspiracy theory about BLPs, and it should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll simply quote myself: "I don't think the group itself is notable". Fringe_theories/Noticeboard &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This "Group" had annual discussions, but inconsistent participation and no name we know of. Papal succession was one topic among many. There's no evidence the 7 (approx.) of them who participated in 2005 conclave did anything other than support like-minded candidates, which is no shocker. While the content of discussions was confidential, the existence of these discussions was not secret, as evidenced by the fact that the Vatican sent one of its own loyalists, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, to check it out. But the press gets excited by anything "secret" (not revealed until 2015!) and the joke about Mafia served as a multiplier. Then conspiracy theorists run with the headlines and try their damnedest to stretch the influence to 2013. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - reliably sourced topic with references from mainstream Catholic media (Catholic News Agency, National Catholic Register) and secular media (London Telegraph, Washington Post, La Stampa, Spectator, etc). The topic has not only featured in the international press and in officially approved biographies of one of the Cardinals involved, but has also been given a prominent place in the work of Austen Ivereigh on the Rise of Pope Francis. As well as this, it elicited a response from the Holy See Press Office in 2014 with a statement from Federico Lombardi. Given that the Catholic Church has some 1.2 billion members worldwide and this group of high ranking clerics have been described under this title in mainstream sources as having had influence in two Papal conclaves, it would appear to be notable enough as a topic. I don't think it would fall under "fringe" because it is mentioned by the mainstream media. Aside from that the main contention in the nomination that it is a "conspiracy theory" (whatever that slippery term is supposed to mean) is not stated in the aforementioned sources. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The oft-quoted "1.2 billion" members line. They include me in that figure! Doesn't mean much. Once you're in, it seems you can't get out. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * National Catholic Register is the rough equivalent of The Weekly Standard and Catholic News Agency of the WSJ editorial page: also, they are both owned by EWTN, so hardly independent intellectually. As I said at the fringe theories noticeboard, this is effectively a conclave conspiracy theory: we get tons of those on here dating back hundreds of years worth of articles because conclaves are secretive events.None of the reporting on the conspiracy theories from at least the 20th century on meet our standards for reliable sourcing, however, because they are built on the Roman rumour mill: there is no such thing as an on the record statement about the internal workings of contemporary papal conclaves. A cardinal would be excommunicated by the law itself if he were to reveal what happened, so there are never actual names involved with the sourcing, and it is usually a friend of a friend of a friend of Cardinal Foo who tells it to the journalist. The secular sources above all generally reporting on what the other sources reported on: that means they are re-reporting that other people reported unreliable information. That doesn't get near GNG. The question is whether or not this particular conspiracy theory is notable or whether it just got a brief burst of press and is excluded by NOTNEWS. The most notable conclave conspiracy theory is the one about Siri thesis that spawned Sedevacantism. That is notable because it caused several (exceptionally minor) schisms by conspiracy theorists who have elected their own rival popes over the last 60 years, and thus it has received enough sustained coverage to be notable as a theory. It also doesn't really have any BLP issues since everyone in the 1958 conclave is dead now. This one, however, just received a brief blip of news, and involves living cardinals to whom association as a cabal within the conclave or college from non-RS could have a negative impact on. This should be deleted on BLP, NOTNEWS, and GNG grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- concur with nom: the group is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone article, for lack of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BLP concerns are also a factor. The conspiracy theory does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources sem sufficient--that is,unless youreject all Catholic sources for topics dealing with that religion.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , of course not: I've certainly never made that claim (and actually fight against it in all religious AfDs for their relative religions). I suppose the argument I should have made here was WP:NFRINGE, which requires extensive coverage. This is a conspiracy theory involving living people that hasn't been extensively covered. That's the big issue, not the Catholic sourcing. If one considers the sourcing: CNA I would probably consider reliable. National Catholic Register it depends on the day where they fall on the "nutjob" vs. "good journalism" spectrum. A lot of what they publish is opinion pieces by sensationalist bloggers, but they do have some good content. It certainly wouldn't be up the the quality America (magazine) is regarded as, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of you--I see we agree about the sources. I do not consider this fringe.The existence of factions with the Catholic church is real enough and sufficiently reported.  DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The factionalism isn't the concern that makes it fringe so much as the idea that there was a organized faction secretly advocating against Ratzinger in 2005, and that it continued in 2013 in an organized manner. That I'd consider a fringe view not really held by any except those within the fringes of the relative Catholic political factions. There is room to disagree, however, and as always I appreciate your views. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keepI believe this is notable based off the above keep !vote and what i could find. L3X1 (distænt write)  01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but yeah, it could use some improvement. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2017 (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.