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 speedy keep. There is no deletion nomination, and the only deletion argument is based on IAR and mistakenly believing this person to be alive. Anyone actually wishing to nominate this article for deletion may do so without prejudice. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Vincenza

[edit]

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

Keep, Per a discussion found here [[1]] Unfortunately there are those here that do not think this lady should have her own page. As the creator I believe she is mentioned in enough third party sources and is central enough in the murder conspiracy theories to warrant her own article. in this case I liken her to Monica Lewinsky. Monica's only real notability is sucking clinton's cock. Granted this is much more graphic then what Sister Vincenza did just delivering coffee, however the excuse was it was unseemly for a woman to be in the papal apartments early in the morning as the reason for giving a different story. Either way both have resulted in media coverage trough books, newspapers and spoken word. As such I believe she does pass notability requirements, I understand others have felt differently so I am open to a community deletion discussion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is well referenced – witten in a NPOV style and informative. Conspiacy??? That I believe, is left to an individual’s own mind-set. As to the article itself, meets all the criteria for inclusion. JAAG^Talk 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question – I am confused why you brought this article to AFD? You are the creator of the piece, by the way nice job – you go through the nomination process to have the article AFD – than you write a strong Keep opinion. Am I missing something. JAAG^Talk 19:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain, article was discussed at the BLPN here and there was some discussion as regards notability and the creator of the article quite decently in the circumstance nominated the article himself, he has also added some citations and comments to the article to improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently I nominate articles for deletion, I dislike seing a author who caares for his work perform useless work if in the end it is deleted anyways.. I figured I'd save all of us time, myself included by taking it a discussion for deletion. It appeared ot be headed that way so to avoid a person having to prod it, me remove it. Someone nominate it for AFd and I have to respond anyways....Figured it save time....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m sorry if I am overlooking the obvious here, but I see Hell in a Bucket as the original author of the piece, at least looking at the history of the article. I see Hell in a Bucket nominating the piece for deletion here at AFD. Then I see Hell in a Bucket writing a strong Keep opinion. Please excuse the pun, but what the hell is going on. Thanks JAAG^Talk 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jag, your repeating yourself, once is plenty, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies, but I didn’t realize AFD was an edit review procedure. I had assumed, reading the policy and guidelines, that the only reason we brought an article here was with a firm belief that an article should be deleted. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, of the current policies and guidelines, my apologies. JAAG^Talk 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you, I am sure you will enjoy your editing here, bye for now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the nomination (i.e. the rationale for its deletion) per WP:AFD? patsw (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original comments at the BLPN discussion were.. not notable, limited notability reflected in only one event. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Ignore all rules. It's just too weird to have an article that starts out by calling a living person a "central figure in conspiracy theories." She could be covered in an article on the theories. Borock (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That arguement could've held weight....if she was still alive. She died in 1984, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I still think the article is kind of lame. Why not just have one on the theories? Borock (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is one on the Theories. However if you do a search [[2]] and [[3]]. This one person is actually one of the main reasons there is theories to begin with. Consider that Monica Lewinski (other then downing a presidential load, what has she done?) and Lewinsky scandal is notable because of the widespread coverage she recieved after the President lied....This is the same thing, if all she did was find the pope dead, I agree non notable. however this wasn't the case. the Vatican lied about her involvement. this has resulted in 30 yeArs of coverage and speculation, Due to one person. This is why Sister Vincenza and the existing conspiracy should exist in tandem. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then one article should do it. If all that's known about her is conspiracy theories then she probably shouldn't have an article since readers would be expecting solid information on her as a person. Much more is known about Ms Lewinsky.Borock (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2010 (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.