Deletion of Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories

Comment: 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  simply isn't a justification for deletion of the entire article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: interesting and notable subject which meets  as in there's proof some people believe these theories and have considered them worth writing about.http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Pope+John+Paul+I%22+conspiracy&ie=UTF-8http://books.google.co.uk/books?rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&um=1&q=%22Pope%20John%20Paul%20I%22%20conspiracy&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np.  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 , even if its just to debunk it means  have considered them worthy of discussion due to the number or type of people who believe them, or whatever their reasons
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS)