Deletion of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave

Comment: inclusion criteria are too arbitrary. See  items 9 and 10
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: The reason: It's pure  and . Look, one just can't tell which of the following is a valid statement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:OR)

Comment: per ist. 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.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_papabili_in_the_2013_papal_conclave&diff=543843338&oldid=543831076 As for the concerns about , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L||WP:V)

Comment: if there is nothing to '''Merge''' to Papal conclave, 2013 - I don't think it's an  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: 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 Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012|here and Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012|here); the lists of papabili, although unofficial (and thus  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, papal conclave#Choice of the electors|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 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:IRS)

Comment: I realized that I had not supplied the most relevant part for the deletion review. I had my nose stuck in the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|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  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 . In the end we have an amorphous collection of speculation . 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 ,  that generates to often a specific point-of-view and thus creates. Neutrality has definitely not been achieved in List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave|this article by carefully and critically analyzing a variety of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable sources and by attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately. Hence we have  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  and   violations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS||WP:FRINGE||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTGOSSIP||WP:NEWSORG||WP:UNDUE||WP:YESPOV||WP:YESPOV||WP:IRS)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:V||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:COI)

Comment: Although one has to keep in mind  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,  seems to be easily satisfied
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:N)

Comment: 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 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/12/why-odds-are-against-american-pope/ this source which suggests no North American cardinal should be on our list. So can I now cite , give such a source and remove all North American cardinals from the list
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)