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. After weighing all contributions and rationales carefully, it is my estimation that there are good editors citing relevant wikipedia policy on both sides of the debate. However, I believe that those making an argument for deleting (which include those wishing to merge or redirect, which are both, in that sense, not wanting this separate list) the article outweigh those wishing to keep. Therefore, delete is the outcome. In my cursory review of other articles here, including Papal conclave, 2013 and a random selection of the articles of the persons/cardinals listed here, it seems there isn't anything that needs to be merged, per se, but someone with interest in this topic (I have Zero) could update those articles to include significantly referenced material about the speculation each was involved in, if appropriate. Keeper | 76 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave[edit]

List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think there is little justification for a separate list of papabili. The usefullness of such a list is extremely limited. Actually, media may discuss about the chances or merits of virtually all cardinal-electors and possibly even some non-electors or even non-cardinals. When we look in the past, we'll quickly recognize that almost in every conclave in the last 500 years over a half of the electors were considered papabili by external observers and the elect was always among them (see Ludwig von Pastor, History of the Popes, vol. 1-40, passim). But this not make sense for creation a separate article, esp. in the form of the table, with little comments. I think that this topic should be included in the article papal conclave, 2013, but without giving it too much weight. It should focus only on those who are reported as supported by some groups of electors or as having particlarly strong position among electors, not all those merely discussed by media. This may refer to Turkson and Scola, who actually are widely discussed in media and there are rumors that Scola is a favourite of Benedict XVI. Currently, this is simply a list of media-speculations, often based on wishful thinking, not on the information about real views of the cardinal-electors. CarlosPn (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Very speculative, unhelpful. half the freaking conclave is on the list. Delete this please. -- Y not? 19:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This nomination does not even bother explaining which guidelines support deletion. It is alleged that "media may discuss about the chances of virtually all cardinal electors..." So what? What does that even have to do with the article? There are 115 men who will vote for pope, and 26 are listed at the article. That hardly fits with the nominator's overly dramatic attempt to make a point and User:Y's unsupported contribution. The fact is that there is no frontrunner, according to cardinals who have talked to reporters. So it shouldn't be a surprise that 20-some names have been bandied about. Even if there are more names than there should be (for instance because each name should have two independent sources), that is a discussion to be had at the article's talk page, not a reason to delete. The word "papabile" refers to cardinals whom Vatican watchers believe are candidates for pope. This is either because cardinal-electors have mentioned them or, more likely, because they fit the criteria that cardinal-electors have said they are looking for in a pope. It is therefore inescapable that the source for this will be the media. But when it comes down to it, Wikipedia often has lists of "potential candidates" at election articles based on nothing more than exactly this sort of reporting, so this is hardly the oddity that nominator tries to make it out to be. American election articles and articles for party leadership elections, particularly in the UK and Canada, are frequent examples of this. There is ultimately no reason to restrict the information to Papal conclave, 2013. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't no what articles about other elections you are talking about but I think that this article has no encyclopedic value. We should remember that in the conclaves there are no public candidatures and the electors are obliged to keep secrecy. Most of the references are nothing more than a short characteristics of some cardinal-electors with comment whether they might be elected, and neither of them pretends to be exhaustive list of those who may be elected. There is actually no clear criterion of "who is papabile". The article Papabile gves the following defintion: a Catholic man, most often a cardinal, who is thought a likely or possible candidate to be elected pope. And, in the very same article, one can read that Pius X, Pius XI or John Paul II were not papabili, which is completly erroneous when we use this definition. They were not main favourites, but certainly they were papabili. So who actually is Papabile? I do not oppose to providing any press-information concerning possible successors of Benedict XVI, but I think that there is no sense in creating separate article, with no clear criteria of adding the names. This should be a part of the main article about papal conclave, 2013, where we should mention which cardinals are most frequently mentioned and who are reported as having a chance to get votes. BTW, most recent reports from the Cardinalitial congregations in La Reppubblica and La Stampa (cited by Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita[1]) indicate that Italian and curial cardinals have little chance to get any significant support from the electors. This is an important information for the readers, not the media-speculations that often have nothing to do with the real pre-conclave proceedings among the electors. The topis itself should be incorporated, but in the limited form, in the main article about conclave. This is my view CarlosPn (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, it says "reasonably" likely. Second, it is clearly implied there (and it is a fact) that the term applies to those thought by Vatican watchers (journalists and academics who make their living following Vatican politics) to fit the definition. The criterion for inclusion is clear: if Vatican watchers have suggested a person is a candidate for this conclave, the person should be included. If that criterion is seen as lacking, the answer is to tighten it up, not to delete the article. The fact that two newspapers have said something and that thing is not included in the article is a reason for adding that thing to the article, not for deleting the article. The fact of people being noted by experts on the topic as potential candidates is clearly noteworthy, so the argument for deleting the article just isn't very strong. -Rrius (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This will lead us to create a list with several dozen names. I'm sure that within the next days press will report several additional figures as papabili. But what is a sense, what is a usefulness of such a list, of creation a separate article? This list says us nothing about real estimation of the chances o the respective cardinals. I propose to include a topic in the article papal conclave, 2013. CarlosPn (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if your first sentence were true, so what? If the actual situation on the ground is that several dozen people are noted as papabili, what possible difference would that make? And where in the world do you get the idea that there several dozen more names will be added? Second, who the papabili are for a given conclave are is a notable topic. This is something that has been a part of the process for hundreds of years, not a few days. As for the "real estimation of the chances", why should that matter at all? That is not the point of the list. If people want to research that, they can read the sources we provide. If this nomination is successful, readers won't be able to do that. Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting a section about papabili at Papal conclave, 2013 if there isn't one already, so that is completely irrelevant to whether this article should exist. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where in the world I get the idea that several dozen more names will be added? Look at this, section "Papabile" CarlosPn (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although I agree trimming is a good idea. Early reports of papabili are likely to include anyone technically papabile. It's likely we'll see the list naturally winnowed as time progresses, but it makes sense to apply stricter scrutiny to existing reporting. The topic easily passes WP:GNG, however. Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Posted before BDD's 20:00, 13 March 2013[2] position change. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)) I generally agree with this. As I noted on the article's talk page, one candidate is listed solely because one reporter wrote, "our thinking is that any Italian between 65-75 in the curia or a major diocese has a fair shot." Frankly, I suspect that if any meaningful standard is applied the list will be pared down so much that the only practical choice will be to merge the information into the longer article.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (Posted before BDD's 20:00, 13 March 2013 position change. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)) But this is what I really propose - to delete the list, but incorporate the useful information to the main article. I do not propose the censorship on that topic. Basing on the press reports from Italy, actually only Scola, Sandri, Scherer and perhaps Turkson were reported as those who can count on support of certain groups of electors. All the other are media-speculations, not even about the real chances (I mean, what support could he received, how many votes, who could vote for him etc.), but simply about whether this or another cardinal has a qualities or what arguments may be put forward in his favor CarlosPn (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I'm thinking the opposite. Given that eight years have passed since the 2005 papal conclave, Wikipedia could have a great List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave since the scholars will have had a chance to analyze and summarize all those newspaper reports about the 2005 papal conclave and have the benefit of cardinal's post-pope-voting writing on the 2005 topic. The lack of a Wikipedia article on List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave shows a lack of interest in the topic, meaning that the interest in "List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave might be short lived like that of the 2005 list so that the present 2013 papal conclave papabili views may be more along the lines of WP:NOT#NEWS. Of course, this AfD has a much wider attendance than the AfD for List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave, so "outcome" might not a viable view. So far, a viable delete position is Wikipedia:Too soon: While the 2013 papabili list topic might arguably merit an article, it is simply too close in time to the 2013 papal conclave to determine who was papabili since the secondary scholarly sources have not yet had a chance to evaluate the writings about the 2013 papal conclave and, without the secondary scholarly sources, it is too speculative for Wikipedia editors to determine who should added to the Wikipedia list. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While we do have a lot of people on the list, all of them (according to various bookmakers) have a fair chance of being elected ([3]). ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oddsmakers are fun, but I think they're not a very good tool to measure probabilities. If you add up all the probabilities implied in the Business Insider article alone, you'd have to expect 1.5 Popes to be elected. Oddsmakers clean up by putting odds of 15:1 on outcomes that they really think have negligible chances of occurring.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmakers are no real sources that enable us to appreciate real chances of the candidates. The using of this kind of "sources" makes this article useless - it's nothing more than trivia CarlosPn (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "using this kind of 'sources'" in the article, so please let's not be intellectually dishonest. The editor was making the point that the betting markets provide some evidence that these candidates are seen as viable. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This list is effective in identifying prospective Cardinals from various countries. It's certainly an improvement from the previous article on this topic (List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave). FitzColinGerald (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, the existence of this article is rather an argument for deletion it too. It does not cite any references. It is completly unknown what were its criteria. Simply another non-encycopedic article that does not prove encyclopedity of this list CarlosPn (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the flipside, nothing you have said sets out any explanation as to how this article fails to be encyclopedic (to have "encyclopedity", as you put it). Instead, you make unfounded assertions such as "half of the electors are candidates" or that we'll have "several dozen" names on the list. Worse than being baseless, they don't actually provide any justification for deleting the article. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just look at this, section "Papabile" CarlosPn (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Read the list. Quite interesting in a certain way. Quite long for a Wikinews piece. Not really a encyclopedic thing for Wikipedia Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is encyclopedic. It is an article about a topic that is notable and that is relevant just as papabili are relevant any time there is conclave. Such a list is not only of significance in the run-up to the conclave, but also from a historical perspective, giving insights into the Church as it existed at the time of a given moment in time. The fact that so many non-Europeans (forget non-Italians) is significant. The fact that multiple South American cardinals under consideration are Italian immigrants is significant. People can gather these insights, among many others, by perusing the list. Deleting it eliminates that ability entirely and to no purpose. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your answer did not convince me entirely. You said many thing but did not touch on my main line of reasoning. Yes it is an interesting subject as you said, but the sources are poor and as CarlosPn already pointed out it is media-speculation. This Vatican Watchers you have earlier written about are mostly nonexistent in the sources used to create this article. Secondly this Vatican Watcher label is illusive in it's nature and can easily be applied with out any restrictions or control. Even if one or two of the sources in this highly debatable subject could provide some redeeming features to it, it still would not change the main character of the subject and the torrent of suggestive and weak speculation that directs it. Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 8:14 , 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, along with List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. The reason: It's pure WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Look, one just can't tell which of the following is a valid statement:

1. The list is correct. (That means, all cardinals listed are indeed "papabile").
2. The list is still missing someone.
3. The list includes a cardinal which is not pababile.

The problem is that obviously, there is no definition for someone being papabile, and thus there are no general inclusion or exclusion criteria for this list. Therefore, it is just an subjective, arbitrary listing without any objective guidelines,. As such, it is inherently unmaintainable and violates WP:V as an article that is no verifiable. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • That makes no sense. Any article can contain information that is inaccurate, be missing information, or be correct without it being manifest by reading it. So if we follow that, we should just shut the whole site down. There is also nothing at about the list that falls under WP:Crystal. The article does not assert that any one of these people will so much as receive a vote in conclave. That is just an unwarranted assumption you made. It is also not WP:OR Each name listed is verified by at least one reliable source. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation on why I think the article should be deleted does make sense; here comes the crucial part in WP:V: All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. It may be correct or incorrect, but there must be the possibility to check. To my knowledge, there is no way (in the sense of a procedure widely considered to be correct) to say whether a cardinal should be included in this list or not. Also, in my opinion it indeed fails WP:CRYSTAL (purely speculative, as the term papabile is missing a definition) and WP:OR (as the list has been collected by Wikipedia editors from a vast number of different sources, none of which displays a similar selection). --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now up to 28, and with additions from the Allen series I mentioned on the talk page the list will reach the mid-thirties. I think that one problem we have here is that we're trying to apply an Italian slang term. If the article is not deleted, I think "Papabili" should just be a redirect, and the title of the article should be something like "2013 Candidates for the Papacy," and the article should make it clear that the sources state each person named has support within the Conclave.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Essentially WP:CRYSTAL Ball and speculative aspect of a future event. Jpacobb (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No shortlist will be announced so this is effectively an article about speculation even if it contains reliable sources. Should be summerised which it all ready appears to have done in the 2013 Papal conclave. GAtechnical (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The overall quality is bad and the journalism used is mainly commentary.I've said my piece. Post Scriptum. For further elaborations I ask you to turn your attention to the book Media, Culture and Catholicism (Communication, Culture & Theology) by Paul A. Soukup, SJ associate professor of Communication Santa Clara University. Here’s his wider take on the subject:(My numbering)1.If denominational adherents receive their information via secular media, it is important for denominations to know whether the discussion evoked is legitimate according to its own determinants 2.It is not difficult to understand why religion and religious belief are so little understood by the secular public when we realize that the larger portion of individuals receive personal religious information from the secular media. So in general such coverage ¨by outsiders for outsiders. 3.The coverage of ¨mainline¨ denominations, however, is increasingly similarly misinformed and hostile.(My comment).Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The crucial problem is that Newspapers write information that is often subjective in nature (often WP:NOTSCANDAL - in the manner of how the candidate evaluations are presented in the newspapers). The problem is made even more complicated as we are dealing with a highly speculative and vague topic which is potentially flammable and used for promoting opinion building or/and political objectives WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTOPINION. Wikipedia articles on religion draw from the religions in question and their own relevant texts/documents and historical and scientific sources WP:RNPOV. If all of the mentioned requirements are not met we cannot honestly say that this article is WP:COMPREHENSIVE. The same applies to the List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave.Pgarret (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I realized that I had not supplied the most relevant part for the deletion review. I had my nose stuck in the book and read some previous contributions in the grand discussion. Here goes. Summary judgment: This articles covers a controversial, disputed idea and has not been documented in detail with reliable sources i.e WP:IRS violation. The relevant academic communities input has not been visible in any of the sources. So if proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's/claim's standing, it should be assumed that the idea or claim has not received consideration or acceptance WP:FRINGE. In the end we have an amorphous collection of speculation WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore we don't have statements by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in this particular field so the only thing we have in our hand is gossip and rumors WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NEWSORG that generates to often a specific point-of-view and thus createsWP:UNDUE. Neutrality has definitely not been achieved in this article by carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and by attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately. Hence we have WP:YESPOV violation. It has to be strictly imparted that one should avoid using in a particularly disputed and vague topic (i.e. Papabile) sources that are stating opinions as facts. Because then we are back to WP:YESPOV and WP:IRS violations.Pgarret (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013. I think it is useful to see who's being talked about as plausible, but the article on its own is clearly speculative. So I'd suggest a compromise: Every cardinal elector is a plausible candidate, so why not just add a column to that table with links to media reports talking about potential papability? Mgruhn (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Papal conclave, 2013 (and also merge List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave with Papal conclave, 2005). Wikipedia carries articles of lists of candidates for offices of national leadership (examples here and here); the lists of papabili, although unofficial (and thus WP:CRYSTAL I'll admit, albeit a squishy form of it IMHO), are roughly analogous to them, so I think that their content is warranted. However, I think that their unofficiality should disqualify them from existing as articles in their own right. Merging the lists of papabili with the corresponding lists of cardinal electors is improper because although papabili have traditionally been cardinals, it isn't required that they be such. The only option (that I see) that satisfies what I've laid out here is to merge them into the "top-level" articles on this subject, which are the articles about the elections themselves. Having said that, those who are passionate about keeping the lists on Wikipedia should try their best to keep them from violating WP:IRS. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Fully agree with previous comment. Could not say it better. --95.176.175.205 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Papal conclave, 2013. I agree with the previous comments presented. Mediran (t • c) 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe Question is not if these article should be deleted but if all the articles of papabili for all the conclaves should be deleted. Since this is not the first article of the subject but a established tradition in the articles that talks about a certained conclave I dont see any reason for deleting historical date and going against a set policy on how conclave articles are made. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the exception of the conclave of 2005, information about papabili are the part of the main articl about conclave. There is no "tradition" of creating a separate articles only about papabili in one or another conclave. CarlosPn (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually a reflection of the age of Wikipedia compare to the previous conclaves before 2005 than tradition either way. KTC (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the last conclave before that was well before Wikipedia was so much as an idea. It's conceivable that someone could trawl sources from then, however, and create a List of papabili in the 1978 papal conclave. It does seem such a primary element of a papal conclave would meet WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We aren't predicting who will be pope, we're listing those who have been described in reliable sources as "papabili". This is a matter that is often mentioned in later years (e.g. "X was considered papabile in 2005") and will remain relevant to these people's biography; it is also notable now, as shown by the number of reliable sources already cited. It would be confusing to merge with the list of voting cardinals because, although there's probably always a big overlap, these are not necessarily a subset of those. Andrew Dalby 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ongoing subject warrants a specific article. -- Evans1982 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be impermissible crystal ball-gazing if we were just coming up with the names ourselves, based on our own assessment, but that's not what we're doing - we're listing those reported as papabile in sources which meet our reliability requirements. Neljack (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is certain interest in the page for the next few days so I see absolutely no harm in keeping the page AT LEAST for a while. Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Three opinions Keep, Merge, Delete 2. Merge, Delete opinions dominate 3. Merge, Delete converge on the issue of deposing of separate papabili 2013 article.4. To keep some of the material seems to be in majority. It is impossible to keep all or to move the whole column. Keeping the columns would not just work.5. What to keep? What gets prioritized? What is the qualitative standard? The obvious answer is that the material should be based on a reliable expert. Who is reliable expert? I would say a scholar in the field in question or a knownvaticanologist from previous years. The sources which don't fit the description must be scraped! A clear line must be drawn or else verything is lost. The best example of a agreeable source is the "Buzz Grows in Rome for Boston's O'Malley" article by John L. Allen, Jr. the famous vaticanologist. I still want to add my suspicion that most will not agree on cuting away 95% of the useless sources in the new merged version. So I vote for Delete and hope that something, about 5%, can be used after the merger. Citing WP:V,WP:CRYSTAL,WP:NEWSORG as my general arguments. I just hope we leave the papal suspicions to the experts. Forngrav (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Theoretically it should be possible to create such a list, if many reliable sources had made such lists. Then Wikipedia editors could take the consensus of the lists (by including only those who appear on nearly all lists). This has not been done here, so the page should be eliminated as failing WP:V, a policy. Abductive (reasoning) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems people have confused two separate things, namely popularity and verifiable facts. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The debated and voiced opinions do not constitute a vote. Majority voting is not the determining factor. When making your case state the argument and kindly refer to Wikipedia core policies. It is utterly pointless to try to turn this in to a shouting competition. The only questions we need to ask are: Does the article pass Wikipedia core content policies i.e. verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. I don't think so! The weakest point is definitely verifiability and the aura of the article is genuine bona fide WP:CRYSTAL. PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU ARE VOICING YOUR OPINION OR VOTING Pgarret (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well what utter crap! I'm a reader of Wikipedia and I found myself at this article because I wanted to know about the likely candidates, and a useful article I found it. And then I noticed the box at the top of the article about how some people want it deleted. Well I don't care whether it meets whatever "core policies" you're talking about, but I do care whether it provides me with information I need. And it does, so cut the crap about deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.21 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although merge could work as well. The nomination in fact suggests a merge, whic would preclude deletion. But since the information is reliably sourced and verifiable, and certainly not original research (the statements that these men a papabile are coming from the reliable sources listed), and the topic is notable (as various publications have lists of the cardinals they consider papabile, even if the lists do not completely overlap) I see no justification for deletion. That said, some editing may be needed. For example, I didn't think Francis Arinze was eligile, despite being listed by the New York Times and others. If those listings are in error, they should not be included. Rlendog (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepInteresting, contemporary news. Maybe consider deleting after a pope is selected. Of course there is a lot of speculation; that is inherent to the subject. But many of us know next to nothing about front-runners and this provides neutral information about those who have been discussed in the cited references as possible successors. No harm to the article and lots of good. Aar095 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^(review) 23:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete if there is nothing to Merge to Papal conclave, 2013 - I don't think it's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to point out that we don't have such lists for almost all other conclaves, though for some (like those in the 16th and 17th centuries) there would be plenty of source material with which to start them. In almost every case, such speculation is included (post election) in the article for the relevant conclave. I see no reason why it shouldn't be so in this case. Stalwart111 00:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Updated note per sensible comments from Robofish) Stalwart111 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I took a little time to think about this one, as we do have other articles on Wikipedia listing speculative candidates for positions, such as Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates and Republican Party vice presidential candidate, 2008. But there's something unique about Papal conclaves, I think (or at least this one in particular), which makes it a bad idea. Due to various factors - the facts that the election is conducted secretly among a very small number of people, who are the only ones that really know what's going on, while being of interest to the whole world - the media's speculation has ranged very widely over a large number of alleged candidates, while being based on very little. Currently the list contains 30 names, and I wouldn't be surprised if reliable sources can be found for others; even if not, that's almost a third of the total available cardinals. Simply put, such a broad list is of questionable use; it mainly just makes Wikipedia look a bit silly, and would make us look even sillier in the (quite possible) event that a Pope is chosen who wasn't on our list. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the 'merge' suggestions, I note that Papal conclave, 2013 already contains a handful of names who have been especially widely mentioned, which seems much more appropriate than this list. There's no need to merge anything. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But include a list of all candidates. This is of some value.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would include all 115 cardinals eligible to vote plus the two who have abstained (one sick, one withdrawal - very unlikely, but still theoretically possible) and a large number of senior clerics who are not cardinals but who could (theoretically) be elected - archbishops and the like (some reportedly received votes at various 20th century conclaves, just not enough to be elected). And that's just the people you would have to put on such a list. I'm pretty sure, technically, any ordained Catholic (someone feel free to refresh my memory of the various rules from the relevant council) would be eligible. Whether or not someone is papabile is entirely subjective. This is not a list of some or all candidates, this is a list of people that some people think might have a better chance than others of being elected. Stalwart111 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, any male baptised Catholic can be elected, which would be a fairly long list! Neljack (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might have been the case but couldn't recall. But it has to be a bloke, right? So with about a billion Catholics, half of them male (give or take), this list is about 499,999,972 people short? Stalwart111 06:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I tend to agree that the designation "papabili" is inherently speculative. But, the list does it the right way by attributing the designation to reliable media sources, not just in the footnotes but in the table itself. More could be done to explain the inclusion criteria (i.e., making clear the fact that a single newspaper is sufficient for inclusion), but not a ground for deletion. The argument that there are no official candidates seem to miss the point; for example, a perennial candidate is not necessarily notable just because he has registered, while an un-announced candidacy may be very notable. Savidan 05:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - by the way, just as there are sources that suggest particular cardinals are papabile, there are others that (with equal weight and reliability) suggest particular cardinals are not. Like this source which suggests no North American cardinal should be on our list. So can I now cite WP:WEIGHT, give such a source and remove all North American cardinals from the list? Stalwart111 08:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Stalwart111, you brought forth a valid argument. When Benedict XVI resigned, a huge media buzz ensued over who might be the next pope. Essentially, this is why there is this long list of 30+ names of cardinals considered "papabile". But from today's point of view, most of them were only mentioned in passing, without any in-depth analysis or continued coverage. When the start of the conclave drew nearer, the general media consensus seemed to have narrowed down so that now it would be called a huge surprise if the next pope would be neither Italian nor Latin American. For example, Der Spiegel from my native Germany only identifies Scherrer and Scola as serious contenders. The Associated Press quotes French cardinal Vingt-Trois that there were only "half a dozen possible candidates". Therefore, it comes to mind that because of the fuzzy definition of the term papabile, an edit war (or at least a heated discussion) might be ahead about whether the person eventually elected pope had been papabile in the first place at all. Having this long list won't help there, either, as such a question must be elaborated in prose. And we already have a place for this. --FoxyOrange (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Ongoing subject that should have a separate article. --Fernandosmission (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:List. It's only a limited number of names, each of which are sourced to a reliable source and provides a valuable information source grouped by theme into a structured list. Users will have some general idea of what they are looking for and then can used this list to navigate to those Wikipedia articles that provide more details on the person listed. I revised the lead to make it more reader friendly.[4] As for the concerns about WP:V, there is agreement above that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information in the List comes from a reliable source. Regarding "sepeculation", it is not Wikipedia generating the speculation. This is a world-wide interest event and the reliable sources are going to write such articles that are of world-wide interest. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia providing a list summary of those reliable sources. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Savidan, Fernandosmission, Jreferee, et al. The nom gives no policies or guidelines to support its deletion, while the proponents of keeping the article cite policy and guidelines, with examples and explanations. What is a reliable source, and who should be on the list, can be verified, and who and what can be sorted out through the normal editing policy. It lists an ongoing historic event. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources prove that the subject is notable. FWIW, I am a former Roman Catholic. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is a very worthwhile summary of articles that have been in most every newspaper and magazine and presents valuable information in the Wikipedia format we like. Since it will be moot once the conclave is over; it should have its own page, which will be far less relevant to those reading the main Conclave page in the future. Though in the interest of making the page more informative and providing a good comparison of the papabili, it may be helpful to only use articles that talk about more than one candidate. The CNN, Business Insider, and Catholic Reporter articles are good examples, since their writers made a choice to include some Cardinals but not others. Editors must be mindful of including articles such as the ones citing Cardinal Maradiagaand Cardinal Wuerl, which do not evaluate all the papabili but just those from a particular region. (And I say this quasi-seriously, would it be helpful to put in the bookmakers' odds (e.g Paddy Power) to show what the general public think about each Cardinal's chances?) Petropetro (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although one has to keep in mind WP:NPOV when editing such a page, as long as we can figure out what a reliable source is, then it is fairly straightforward: each entry is the name of the papabile, who mentions them, and other factual information. Given the worldwide attention on this topic, WP:N seems to be easily satisfied. Kingdon (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list of likely candidates in a particular conclave has historical value both in its own right and as a comparison tool for future conclaves. For example the comments on the new Pope mentioning that he was one of the leading papabili in the 2005 conclave. Cynical (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This list is very important, and there is no reason to delete it. --Daniel the duck (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This list is useful, very well stocked with reliable sources, and refers to a historic international event. It is not really in the same context as, say, a list of potential U.S. presidents or of people to fill other political posts (if such a thing existed). It is on such a massive scale in terms of interest and coverage that there is little with which to compare it. Also, some of these names were mentioned in 2005 so it would be fair to say that this list contains many future cardinal electors, maybe even the the next pope or two or three - it would certainly be useful for readers to have when that time comes, giving it further historic significance. I don't think it should be merged either - the cardinal electors list contains 100+ entries, while this is a much more concise and better developed list (with images included alongside entries as well) for some of the foremost individuals in the RC church. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Another query - now that the election has finished, there's a new Pope, List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave has been deleted and this list of unduely weighted speculation is of no real value, are the keepers still keen to keep? Stalwart111 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Bearian (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Well, it was worth asking. Stalwart111 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Merge Delete.- I HAVE A SOLUTION...I think. Maybe we can all have our way? The deleters want this separate page gone - fine! The keepers want primarily to preserve the best papabili reports from the 2013 papal conclave -fine! Let's merge it and so are the mergers contended!

METHOD: Two categories of papabili in the merged version. THE EXPERTS, known as Vaticanists or other suitable experts. THE MEDIA, the three main news media outlets measured by biggest market share or readership!

I) EXPERTS that should be for example John L. Allen, Jr., maybe two of the most respected Italian vaticanisti Sandro Magister, also here and Andrea Tornielli

II) THE MEDIA that would be a combination of all the papabili names from the three main/ biggest media outlets. There has to be some limit restrictions.

If this does not work, nothing will and I'll go change to delete!

Observe that List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave does not exist anymore and therefore conclusions should be drawn --JamboQueen (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can't really see a problem with having content of this sort. I would suggest that editors work out a standard for which sources are adequate to include someone in the list. Everyking (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though the list may not be official, I think an article for the people who has the 'high chances' of becoming pope should be for keeps. You can never delete a special part of the historical event like this. I think the article is of important part of the 2013 conclave. Also, for keeping this, the 2005 list of papabili should also be restored for of the same reason.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete*. I was generally in favor of keeping to see if we could get our act together, but even with partial protection the edit wars continue. The column indicating which news organization noted which Cardinal as a candidate. which was added after due discussion on the talk page, has been taken off again. Besides just being a [edit descriptive term] solo move, removing the column removes the basis that raises the article above crystal balling -- the idea that this is about the coverage of the conclave, and not the conclave itself. The small amount of information that will eventually survive the last cuts will surely find a place on the main 2013 Conclave articleArnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been added back while I was typing.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I corrected it and I'm now so fed up with this magic box, so I go for delete.--JamboQueen (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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, 2013 as "people rumored in the media to have been papabili" but there's nothing worth keeping.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - (I also iVoted above). I'm thinking that, unless we can figure out a reasonable list criteria, it will be difficult for editors to know who should be added to the Wikipedia list. I looked more into the List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave to get a better idea about this topic. John L. Allen Jr. is considered an expert in this area. In 2005, he noted in the National Catholic Reporter:

  "Prognostication is a notoriously hazardous business, and the trash heaps of church history are littered with the carcasses of journalists who have tried to predict the next pope. Almost no one, for example, correctly anticipated that the archbishop of Kraków, Karol Wojtyla, would emerge from the second conclave of 1978 as Pope John Paul II. In that spirit, the intent here is not to "predict" who will become the next pope, which is a futile exercise. Instead, the aim is to identify cardinals whose backgrounds, accomplishments, and personalities guarantee they will at least get a serious look as possible papal material.[5]"

  Interestingly, Allen identified Bergoglio as a 2005 pope candidate (Bergoglio won the 2013 pope election) and mentioned Ratzinger several times in Allens' 2005 article,[6] but did not identify Ratzinger as a 2005 pope candidate, even though Ratzinger won the 2005 pope election. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, the aim is to identify cardinals whose backgrounds, accomplishments, and personalities guarantee they will at least get a serious look as possible papal material". Well said!. This line of thought could be integrated in the merged version where we melt together the brainwork and cardinals named by Vaticanists and with the quite uniform lists of names provided by Mass media. Combine the names mentioned by people like this with a mention of the total average of papal candidates presented in the media. In the end we can see that in this instance both EXPERT and MEDIA opinions correlated or where interdependent. Everyone walked on the ice of speculation. I just think the Vaticanists took the more serious look! --JamboQueen (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've both basically hit the nail on the head (in a round-about kind of way) - this is really just a POV-fork with some synthed-together sources that happen to suit that particular point of view - that in the opinion of one or two people, x person is papabile. In some cases, the sources aren't even that specific, they just say, person x might have some support or person y fits the criteria. Papabili were traditionally those seen by Vatican-watchers as having strong social/political/factional support among fellow cardinals prior to conclave, not just the random speculation of news outlets (in whatever historical form). The problem with this list remains that there are an equal number of sources that dispute the claims in the sources we do cite - that's the nature of unverified, personal and non-expert opinion. If we added people to the list on the basis of the sources we have and then removed them from the list on the basis of equally-speculative counter-conjecture from equally-reliable sources, then we'd have a list of only half-a-dozen people - which is exactly what we already have at Papal conclave, 2013#Papabili. Stalwart111 22:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources external to Wikipedia having POV does not make the Wikipedia list itself POV. Regarding the above quote, John L. Allen Jr.'s expert opinion shows what sources Wikipedia should use for the lists. The first limit on Wikipedia's list criterial sould be to limit the reliable sources used in the article to reliable sources that look at cardinals backgrounds, accomplishments, and personalities relative to their possible papal material rather than reliable sources that merely "predict" who will become the next pope. The second Wikipedia's list criteria should be to require multiple sources for a given entry, not just one, and there should be some sort of geographic element (e.g. sources in a few of Italy, France, United States, South America, etc. in general agreement). The point of this list is to capture a general sense of who people around the world thought had a reasonable chance of being elected pope in 2013. That is a reasonable purpose and it can be done. Maybe it cannot be done now so soon after the election, but with the passage of time scholars will evaluate the election to increase the amount and reliability of the views on the topic and Wikipedians can use that in the list article. On the other hand, we have prose at Papal_conclave,_2013#Papabili so maybe it can be done now with existing reliable sources. Since the list can go into details that a string of names at Papal_conclave,_2013#Papabili does not provide, it makes sense to have a list to present information that supplements the article's prose content. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding POV - my point was more that there are two distinct views on each papabili, broadly; electable/not electable. My concern is that we're using only those sources that make any suggestion that a person was electable and not any of the sources (many from commentators more "expert" than the ones we cite) that suggest otherwise. So in each case, we're only reporting on one side of each argument. There might be one or two sources suggesting a candidate is electable but nine or ten suggesting otherwise. Yet that person would appear in our list because the one or two sources are given undue weight against the nine or ten (in fact the latter are ignored all together). As for the substantive part of your comment - very sensible, I think. I still think such a criteria would leave us with a list of half-a-dozen or so, but if this is going to be kept we need a far better list inclusion criteria. Stalwart111 21:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, why keep it if the conclave is already finished. There are no really official papabili that's being released by the Vatican. The information given by this list-article is only the speculations or the opinions of many media and reports. It just contain their bets, this list is unofficial. This makes the article false, even Wikipedia. For an example, Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines was the most bet of many media commentators to be next in line after Benedict XVI but then again, it turned out that Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina was elected as our new pope. See, it's just their opinions and mostly their bets but then again, there's no official info that's included in this list. However, if we're going to relate this in accordance of WP policies and guidelines, it doesn't violate any of it because first, it's well sourced. Changing !vote from Merge to Delete. Mediran (t • c) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This amounts to "list of people who someone who was paid to report news thought maybe could be made Pope, without really any other inclusion criteria". It is not based on any verifiable trait, but is just turning baseless media speculation into presumed fact. It is not worth much, on does not cover a viable trait. We might as well just have a list of all the existing cardinals at the time of the conclave. Since there are some Cardinals who were not even electors included in the list, it really is not clear that there is even a strong connection between likelihood and inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave and more generally per the principal that Wikipedia is not a source for News. Papabile articles are interesting maybe during the conclave, but they are not of permanent historic value. This is especially shown by the sneaking in of more pro-Bergoglio sources after the fact, but failure to put in more-pro-other candidates sources after the fact, creating confirmation bias in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding (extra) sources for information that were already there, and for that matter referenced is not confirmation bias. It'd only be confirmation bias if he wasn't mentioned before and we suddenly try and fit him in somehow now that he's won. KTC (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Revise the article first by adding sufficient references. If it doesn't work, there's no other option than to delete the article completely. Kiddie Techie (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Solution for the merged version

(Everything would not be deleted- the core would be kept)

-THIS IS HOW WE CAN DO IT.

>The Vaticanists

Card. Timothy M. Dolan - Sandro Magister here, here

Card. Angelo Scola mentioned first by Sandro Magister here and also by Andrea Tornielli here. Another contributer has been Vatican affairs analyst Gerard O'Connell. The following are references for O'Connell as a well respected Vatican analyst, here, here and here

Card. Odilo Pedro Scherer mentioned here. Andrea Tornielli says some real curial heavyweights are pushing Brazil’s Cardinal Scherer. This is actually a papal candidacy that has been brewing for a long time — I never hear Scherer’s name being mentioned by the general Catholic public, but I have heard it mentioned by Vaticanisti for years. Took it from here

>Mentioned by most big Media (In order of appearance)

Peter Turkson

Marc Ouellet

Christoph Schönborn

Angelo Scola

Gianfranco Ravasi

Luis Antonio Tagle

All of whom the media listed as "papabili" where extensively written and analyzed by John L. Allen, Jr. in his own probable candidates list here. Some papal candidates where obvious (position in church and notability) put some where first point out and examined more closely by Vaticanists. Maybe Cardinal Scherer was a case in point who then subsequently was launched also in the mass media as Papabile--JamboQueen (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:SYN per precedent (2005). Any really important information can be mentioned at the appropiate articles. Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Media speculation?

-The next Pope will almost certainly be someone you have never heard of. That is the only prediction one can make with any confidence.Daily Mail

-Obviously, the journalistic ideal is to back up every assertion by citing named sources. The laugh was because we know conclave coverage always falls well short of that ideal.National Catholic Reporter

-Pgarret (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguments like I "feel" so and so is a notoriously difficult assessment tool and is not always agreeable with encyclopedic sentiments. What we need is a well reasoned assessment with reference to Wikipedia policies & guidelines.

So far these points have been cited as relevant :

FOR-KEEP

WP:GNG -meets criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

FOR-DELETE

WP:CRYSTAL -Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.

WP:OR -The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist

WP:V - means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

WP:COMPREHENSIVE -Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work;

WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article

WP:NOTGOSSIP -Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping.

WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".

WP:NEWSORG -The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate.

WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts

WP:RNPOV -Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

--Pgarret (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just some nitty-gritty amendments to this list?:

KEEPERS

WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content..

WP:RS: Can be established in this article and is verifiable WP:V

DELETERS

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE : The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance

WP:DIVERSE: Sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

WP:SYNTHESIS: If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted.

WP:LC: The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia, Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

Good luck! --JamboQueen (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, inclusion criteria are too arbitrary. See WP:LC items 9 and 10. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. IronKnuckle (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: per what happened in 2005, per the fact that this can never be a discriminate list, since we'll never know who actually received votes, and per that long list of WP:NOT violations above pbp 05:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Vatican will never release the actual names, we know this and hedged the page by including folks that some media outlet predicted, this would be like making a list of baseball teams that are being predicted by media outlets to win the 2013 World Series. Does not belong here. J04n(talk page) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! After 70,000+ bytes of discussion and debate, I reckon that's the best analogy yet. Bravo! Stalwart111 10:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When all is said and done, please censure User:JamboQueen for violating WP:CAN and canvassing people like me who have zero connection to any of this. If you check this user's contributions and read the talk page history you'll see there were others not too happy about this. --Bobak (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2013 (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.