Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Please continue merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Vincenza Taffarel

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

Not notable. The opening sentence says she is a central figure is several conspiracy theories. No information is given about the person herself.Borock (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories. She plays a large part in these theories, this content would fit well in that article. I closed the previous AfD as speedy keep as there were no valid deletion arguments. Fences&Windows 20:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not mind if the article is kept, though I believe that for the reader the material would be better placed as part of the larger article. I strongly oppose deletion. Fences&Windows 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record does this count as a Keep opinion? I thought it read that way but I don't want to put wordsi in your mouth either...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a merge or keep opinion, preferring merge but supporting preservation of the material either way. Fences&Windows 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as indicated by Fences&Windows. PDCook (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough content and sources to warrant a stand-alone article. PDCook (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this person has the same notability that Monica Lewinsky has. She did find him dead and the Vatican lied about her involvment in finding him dead. This lead to notable coverage that has been mostly about conspiracy theories, however the Vatican, through a bishop has admitted to the falshood they started. This is literally no different from Clinton (United States Head of State) and Monica Lewinski. The only difference is that she was delivering coffee. This does make her a notable figure, Do the search under google news. Use Sister Vincenza+Pope. Clearly is a notable historic figure. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per User:Fences and windows. Her only notability is in her discovering the Pope's death. The analogy to Lewinsky doesn't seem to pan out, as Lewinsky went on to become independently notable through interviews with the press and book deals. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notability policy....

"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.

If the event is highly significant(Cause of death for a pope is very significant), and the individual's role within it is a large one(it has resulted in several articles and books), a separate article is generally appropriate." Had she only found the pope dead I would agree, not notable for her own article. This isn't the case. They lied about her and later admitted they did so. This counts as a person who can have her own article. Look at the coverage and see how often she is mentioned, she is notable enough for a standalone article. 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum..."On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." I don't think I can argue this any better then this. By these guidelines regarding notability for one event isn't enough I doubt I can get this kept...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also support merge and redirect to the conspiracy article. Then no information is lost and WP would be spared from a bio article with no solid information on its subject.Borock (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Borock makes an excellent point. Without enough independent and verifiable information about the subject herself, the limited material is relegated to the event to which she is tied. Upon more information about her becoming available, it might make sense to reconsider an independent article at that time. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be considered enough independant sources? I have added several newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Afro American, and many other papers) and books. What threshold would you want?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is complaining about lack of sources. It's just that the sources don't give any solid facts about the person, only rumors and innuendo. Nothing would be lost by merging.Borock (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see reference 1...Hofmann, Paul (St. Martins Press) (in English). The Vatican's women: female influence at the Holy See. pp. 145. ISBN 0312274904. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sister Vincenza is clearly notable. This article poses no risk of unsourced defamation in its current form, and the person has been widely commented on in the press and in books. I think it should be up to the consensus of editors whether the material is best kept as a separate article or merged somewhere else. When a merge is performed, it is usually necessary to leave out some material, and I don't see anything in this article that is excessive or an example of undue attention to the Sister's historical role. The fact that there is hardly any info on her personal life is not a reason for merge by itself. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Ed, she appears to have notability and the article is now well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see how specifically this individual relates to the conspiracy theories, in that there is nothing alleged as regards what she did or says she did being controversial, rather than generally the RC hierarchy not wishing it to be known a female was in the habit of entering the papal rooms alone (or only with the Pope) and attempting to suppress it. There is nothing in the article as is that suggests a sexual relationship, not even as a potential reason for suppressing the information. The question would then be where to merge it; Pope John Paul I ?, P J P I conspiracy theories?, RC attitudes to celibacy and priests?, Church suppression of negative information?, etc. It might best be left as is, and linked from various articles where relevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to review the entire controversy. there were claims that there was items removed that proved the pope was poisined. Her part was that she allegedly told a story to french reporters then abruptly changed the story. The death of the popes deal with that. Her main part is being lied about, and finding the pope. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories. This fits well there. Alio The Fool 21:14, 13 January 2010 (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.