Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Gallen Group

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gallen Group

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

The discussion group is real and has been covered, but the question is whether or not it is notable enough for its own article: my !vote is obviously no. The essential claim to notability is that they formed a faction within two papal conclaves (2005/2013) to elect the current Pope and in opposition to Pope Benedict XVI: this is essentially a conspiracy theory that would be common in virtually any papal election. They're secretive by nature, so no one knows what goes on as they are occurring and as of at least the 20th century, cardinals cannot actually reveal what occurred in the conclave, so the existence of any sourcing on it is by its very nature an unreliable source. We effectively have here a conspiracy theory about BLPs, and it should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll simply quote myself: "I don't think the group itself is notable". Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This "Group" had annual discussions, but inconsistent participation and no name we know of. Papal succession was one topic among many. There's no evidence the 7 (approx.) of them who participated in 2005 conclave did anything other than support like-minded candidates, which is no shocker. While the content of discussions was confidential, the existence of these discussions was not secret, as evidenced by the fact that the Vatican sent one of its own loyalists, Cardinal
  talk) 21:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - reliably sourced topic with references from mainstream Catholic media (Catholic News Agency, National Catholic Register) and secular media (London Telegraph, Washington Post, La Stampa, Spectator, etc). The topic has not only featured in the international press and in officially approved biographies of one of the Cardinals involved, but has also been given a prominent place in the work of Austen Ivereigh on the Rise of Pope Francis. As well as this, it elicited a response from the Holy See Press Office in 2014 with a statement from Federico Lombardi. Given that the Catholic Church has some 1.2 billion members worldwide and this group of high ranking clerics have been described under this title in mainstream sources as having had influence in two Papal conclaves, it would appear to be notable enough as a topic. I don't think it would fall under "fringe" because it is mentioned by the mainstream media. Aside from that the main contention in the nomination that it is a "conspiracy theory" (whatever that slippery term is supposed to mean) is not stated in the aforementioned sources. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The oft-quoted "1.2 billion" members line. They include me in that figure! Doesn't mean much. Once you're in, it seems you can't get out. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Siri thesis that spawned Sedevacantism. That is notable because it caused several (exceptionally minor) schisms by conspiracy theorists who have elected their own rival popes over the last 60 years, and thus it has received enough sustained coverage to be notable as a theory. It also doesn't really have any BLP issues since everyone in the 1958 conclave is dead now. This one, however, just received a brief blip of news, and involves living cardinals to whom association as a cabal within the conclave or college from non-RS could have a negative impact on. This should be deleted on BLP, NOTNEWS, and GNG grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete -- concur with nom: the group is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone article, for lack of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BLP concerns are also a factor. The conspiracy theory does not meet
  WP:NFRINGE either. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The sources sem sufficient--that is,unless youreject all Catholic sources for topics dealing with that religion. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFRINGE, which requires extensive coverage. This is a conspiracy theory involving living people that hasn't been extensively covered. That's the big issue, not the Catholic sourcing. If one considers the sourcing: CNA I would probably consider reliable. National Catholic Register it depends on the day where they fall on the "nutjob" vs. "good journalism" spectrum. A lot of what they publish is opinion pieces by sensationalist bloggers, but they do have some good content. It certainly wouldn't be up the the quality America (magazine) is regarded as, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I wasn't thinking of you--I see we agree about the sources. I do not consider this fringe.The existence of factions with the Catholic church is real enough and sufficiently reported. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The factionalism isn't the concern that makes it fringe so much as the idea that there was a organized faction secretly advocating against Ratzinger in 2005, and that it continued in 2013 in an organized manner. That I'd consider a fringe view not really held by any except those within the fringes of the relative Catholic political factions. There is room to disagree, however, and as always I appreciate your views. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keepI believe this is notable based off the above keep !vote and what i could find. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but yeah, it could use some improvement.
  talk) 08:23, 20 September 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.