Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papal curiosities: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 04:48, 30 March 2022

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Papal curiosities

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, not for lists as sad as this.--Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was created a few hours ago to cope with an accumulation of assorted cruft in Pope that seems difficult to be rid of otherwise. However: While I agree that it is not in good shape as it stands, at least some of the information in it is genuinely interesting. If it were rewritten as prose instead of a series of lists and were better organized I think it would be worth keeping, and if I see any progress in that direction I'd be happy to change my vote. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A mild case of working-title-itis for a holding article I admit (g). There does not appear to be a page on History of the Papacy as such - to which the second component could be added, while it might be useful to have a page on links between popes (eg the several Borgias, and the links mentioned in the first part of this piece.

Jackiespeel 14:30, 6 December 2005 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
+<!--
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result of the debate was delete. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 ===[[Papal curiosities]]===
 [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information]] —[[User:Messedrocker|'''M'''<small>'''ESSED'''</small>'''R'''<small>'''OCKER'''</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Messedrocker|talk]])</small> 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
@@ Line 4: / Line 11: @@
 *'''Delete'''. Indeed, not for lists as sad as this.--[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. This article was created a few hours ago to cope with an accumulation of assorted cruft in [[Pope]] that seems difficult to be rid of otherwise. '''However:''' While I agree that it is not in good shape as it stands, at least some of the information in it is genuinely interesting.  If it were rewritten as prose instead of a series of lists and were better organized I think it would be worth keeping, and if I see any progress in that direction I'd be happy to change my vote. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
+A mild case of working-title-itis for a holding article I admit (g). There does not appear to be a page on [[History of the Papacy]] as such - to which the second component could be added, while it might be useful to have a page on links between popes (eg the several Borgias, and the links mentioned in the first part of this piece.
+[[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>