Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories[edit]
- Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Prod tag removed by an anon, so bringing this to AfD. This unreferenced article seems to be a mishmash of unsourced conspiracy theories and allegations and book reviews/comparisons, resulting in what appears to be original research and and synthesis. There's the possibility that an article on this topic would be useful, but this isn't it. I wouldn't be opposed to someone doing a properly referenced major rewrite during the AfD, but if it is not done, then this article really should go. Risker (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator admits in his nom that this is notable and source-able. AfD is not the place for articles in need of cleanup or copy-editing. Ford MF (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not being nominated for lack of notability, or lack of verifiability. It is being nominated under our core policy No original research, which is as much a pillar of the encyclopedia as the others - in fact more so, because notability is still a guideline. The other solution is to stub the article, removing anything unsourced or contentious, which would take it down to the lead sentence. Risker (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT article, the book review (of a book that deals with these conspiracy theories), at the very least would tend to support the existence of these conspiracy theories and their source-ability. The book itself, which would seem most helpful, is alas out of print now. There was a paperback from Penguin in 2001, but it looks like that's been gone for a while. Conspiracy theories don't have to be true to be reported (see also 9/11 conspiracy theories); the existence of the theories is what is being documented here. And the article has sources. It sounds like what you are really looking for are the {{Nofootnotes}} and {{Cleanup}} templates, rather than an AFD. Ford MF (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Ford MF, I am not saying there are no conspiracy theories; there certainly are. What I am saying is that an article that has had not a single reference since its inception in February 2007 as a split from Pope John Paul I (where the subject is still mentioned, and where this section was tagged as requiring references as far back as October 2006), and that is clearly conflating fictional treatments of these conspiracy theories with published ones, does not meet our core policy of No original research. Some of the theories in the article don't even appear to be verifiable. The Yallop and Cornwell theories probably are, if one can get hold of the original texts, but given the synthesis of fiction into the article, one cannot depend on anything that is written in it even reflecting the positions taken by the original authors. Adding more tags onto the article doesn't make it any less of original research, and we shouldn't be having articles that we know violate our core policies. Tags don't make up for that. Risker (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess I don't see where the synthesis comes in. The article appears to be only a summary of theories presented in notable published works. As it stands, the article separates the theories by the theorists. You seem to be arguing for more synthesis, i.e. an article that presents "theories" as a singular body, and then footnotes where those theories are from. I mean, the article could use some footnoting, I suppose, for format's sake, but realistically those footnotes would only replicate, without variance, the information given in the section headings.
- Additionally, I don't think it is unreasonable to object to the presence of fictional treatments of the conspiracy theories, although in similar articles a discussion of inspired fiction segregated into its own subject heading to clearly delineate its fictionality (e.g. discussion of the [{Da Vinci Code]] in the article on The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail) is seen as acceptable by the community. Ford MF (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Why is our time being wasted here? AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep assuming some sources get added and the language made NPOV. Otherwise it isn't really a coherent article. DGG (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you assume that? I see no one offering--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I checked it now and I'm seeing sources like the New York Times. The topic is certainly notable as there are books on it (Holy Blood, Holy Grail being just one). 23skidoo (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was in the FICTION section last time I looked! This OR pure and simple - we don't need working notes for the next Dan Brown novel posing as a serious article. That something like an article could in theory maybe possibly be written, sometime by someone with some sources, isn't a serious reason to keep shit on wikipedia.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Don't wait until "somebody" cleans it up. Delete it until it's fixed. — Werdna • talk 23:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete it until it's fixed" is not an approach to cleanup actually supported by the community. Ford MF (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, "Leave in a terrible state for years" seems to be the norm. Perhaps I disagree with that approach. — Werdna • talk 03:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plenty of sources to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep- interesting and notable subject which meets WP:RS as in there's proof some people believe these theories and have considered them worth writing about.[1][2]. We don't judge whether to keep an article based on whether we personally believe in the theories, but whether they have been mentioned in WP:RS, even if its just to debunk it means WP:RS have considered them worthy of discussion due to the number or type of people who believe them, or whatever their reasons. Sticky Parkin 01:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AFD is not a substitute for cleanup. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. John Paul I conspiracy theories are clearly something which have piqued the interest of several people, and they have been given serious attention, and not just from the fringe. Discovery Civilization for instance had a whole documentary, "Conspiracies on Trial" which was devoted to the conspiracy theories. The theories are probably untrue, but they are clearly notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while the nom is correct that NOR is one of our core principles, it is an article content rule rather than an article inclusion rule. The fact that some of the article content (even a substantial portion of it) fails to satisfy WP:NOR simply isn't a justification for deletion of the entire article. Cynical (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates OR. If someone wants to write a fully referenced article, then they can. Right now, this is not following one of our core policies, and needs to go ASAP. -- how do you turn this on 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of it. -- how do you turn this on 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. How exactly are summaries of published works original research? Also, as noted above, NOR is a content guideline, not an inclusion one. Ford MF (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are unverified and controversial, and as such are considered original research until shown otherwise. Let's put it this way. Nobody would get away with sticking an unreferenced conspiracy theory into 9/11 conspiracy theories; it would immediately be removed until proper reference sources, including page numbers for printed material, was included and it would be deemed "original research" until shown otherwise. Are we to accept the CIA murdered The Pope without a reference? The only conspiracy theory in this article that has an accessible reference on the page itself is the play. To remove all the unsourced and unverified information would give the play undue weight (as far as I can tell it was performed for a grand total of 2 weeks in a 400-seat theatre well out of the West End). Therefore, stubbing down to information that is verified is unreasonable. The alternative is to redirect it back to the main article, from which the majority of this content was removed in February 2007...because it was unreferenced and was felt to be given undue weight. It's much more difficult to start a new article from a redirect, especially for a less experienced editor. There is evidence that nobody is interested in improving this article, since the content has remained unreferenced for two years. Yes, there are books written about it; I read one of the ones mentioned in the article, and the information in the article is not as I recall, although it has been some time. I'd rather give a clean start to someone who has the genuine interest and willingness to build an article on this topic, if such an editor ever appears. Risker (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the CIA thing, since it was the only conspiracy theory in the article not referenced to a published work. That shouldn't have been there. And as for "accessible reference", I presume you're complaining that these are things that must be found in a library, rather than on the internet? The books whose theories are outlined here clearly exist, and are clearly about PJPI conspiracy theories. Are you arguing that our article misrepresents the conspiracy theories as put forth in the books described?
- The Yallop book is, alas, only available on Google reader in snippet view, but the reference in this book seems to confirm its content as the way we have described it. Ditto for the Cornwell book. Paring down the information on the novel would not, I think, be ideal (see also Da Vinci Code in various conspiracy theories), but also not beyond the pale. Ford MF (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are unverified and controversial, and as such are considered original research until shown otherwise. Let's put it this way. Nobody would get away with sticking an unreferenced conspiracy theory into 9/11 conspiracy theories; it would immediately be removed until proper reference sources, including page numbers for printed material, was included and it would be deemed "original research" until shown otherwise. Are we to accept the CIA murdered The Pope without a reference? The only conspiracy theory in this article that has an accessible reference on the page itself is the play. To remove all the unsourced and unverified information would give the play undue weight (as far as I can tell it was performed for a grand total of 2 weeks in a 400-seat theatre well out of the West End). Therefore, stubbing down to information that is verified is unreasonable. The alternative is to redirect it back to the main article, from which the majority of this content was removed in February 2007...because it was unreferenced and was felt to be given undue weight. It's much more difficult to start a new article from a redirect, especially for a less experienced editor. There is evidence that nobody is interested in improving this article, since the content has remained unreferenced for two years. Yes, there are books written about it; I read one of the ones mentioned in the article, and the information in the article is not as I recall, although it has been some time. I'd rather give a clean start to someone who has the genuine interest and willingness to build an article on this topic, if such an editor ever appears. Risker (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. How exactly are summaries of published works original research? Also, as noted above, NOR is a content guideline, not an inclusion one. Ford MF (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of it. -- how do you turn this on 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.