Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Capozzi

The Italian sources do name him and make the link. I thought adding the material into Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church might be an option too. My only reservation is that the article doesn't really list every Catholic cleric who is gay - for obvious reasons. And so it might look odd about why we're particularly focusing on one individual (the media reporting is, in any case, somewhat salacious). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that the article is about the right man, which is so important. On your second point, it's not called List of

WP:BLPCRIME, though as I have said, it is analogous to a crime within the RC system. Although I'm still minded to merge, moving to draft would be better than outright deletion (six months in draft ought to make things clearer). Matt's talk 23:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The concern I have with draftifying is that if it isn't notable, we'd have a possible BLP violation sitting around in draft space, which is non-ideal. I've asked BLPN to weigh in on the article content. The likely best outcome here is for the author to save an off-wiki copy and consider recreation in 6 months or more if he is still receiving coverage beyond just trial updates. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:CRIME. Being the secretary to a bishop is not notable unless they are also a bishop. The scandal is new, so we have no evidence that it will be notable past the current month or two. A gay priest who uses drugs isn't anything particularly noteworthy, and we should also remember that he is a living person: by our policies unless this crime is shown to have lasting impact, we don't make their number one result in Google be Wikipedia discussing the uneventful lowest point in their lives. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep notable subject and topic was covered in international news media across the world. This case is somewhat anomalous, because of the unusual nature of the crime (ie - it taking place in the Vatican City), which is probably why it got media attention. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short spurts of media coverage for a crime, even if international, are not enough to meet the notability guideline per
    WP:CRIME. Since the subject is also a a living person, we need to be exceptionally cautious about how we apply the standards of coverage here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete smacks of
  WP:RECENTISM. I can't imagine this to be of any notable importance in a few months. Maineartists (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The article seems deliberately salacious and the individual has no notability beyond the fact he was caught with drugs (fairly commonplace). As per BLP also question about whether individual self-identifies as gay to warrant references to being involved in a "homosexual orgy". We need to be very careful here.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contaldo80, your nomination counts as a !vote. We typically don't have noms with bolder deletes. It would be best in this case to strike the delete and change it to "comment." TonyBallioni (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with
  WP:BLPCRIME
  :

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, include all the explanatory information.

The priest is not covered by

WP:WELLKNOWN and is only known for the event itself. Without the removed information there is nothing left in the article to justify its inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete
  WP:BLPCRIME seems strong here as a reason. The subject is not of "high rank" or in any aspect of sufficient notability even to be named in related articles. Collect (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Doesn't seem to pass
  WP:BLPCRIME Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - It is necessary to look at this version to see what this is about. Some one has (properly) removed all detail about the scandal as unproved BLP matter. However without that the article merely refers to a thoroughly NN Vatican cleric. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2017 (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.