Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custodi di quella fede

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 Non Admin Close Dusti^{talk to me} 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custodi di quella fede

Non notable and unremarkable. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, significant. --Oldak Quill 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It's certainly verifiable, but aside from the fact that it's an encyclical there's no notability asserted. I'm not convinced that a condemnation of Freemasonry is significant in itself, but the article deserves a chance at expansion. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me that papal encyclicals are notable per se. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note This may also be of interest - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inimica vis 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)
Keep Although I think that papal encyclicals are inherently notable I have added a couple of masonic sources to show that this was notable. JASpencer (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with new sourcing verifying notability. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JASpencer's good work. Go ahead and close, Dusti ;-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (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.