Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave
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
— User:Pgarret, 11:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:IRS||WP:FRINGE||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTGOSSIP||WP:NEWSORG||WP:UNDUE||WP:YESPOV||WP:YESPOV||WP:IRS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)