Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Stephen II

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 Keep, see WP:RM or WP:RFC for the issue at hand. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add that the nominator tried precisely that before trying AfD as a way to generate interest. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Stephen II

I want to rename the page Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II, but I need room for it. The dab is already on the article Pope Stephen III, so there is absolutely no need for a separate dab page. You can find a long discussion about this in Talk:Pope Stephen. Maybe this place is not the good one to discuss the issue of numbering popes Stephen, but I've found no other place to launch this debate. Švitrigaila 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: For background on this, see the bottom of my talk page; after he tried at various other places to get input on this (up to now, only he and one other user had been interested in this discussion, and they didn't agree), e.g. at the village pump and RfC, we came up with this way of getting more input on it. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not an AfD discussion -- merely an issue as to whether or not Stephen (ephemeral pope) counts as a pope or not. Recommend arbitration and speedy close of AfD -- 62.25.109.196 12:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Arbitration is definitely too much, it's not even a real content dispute. The problem is that the usual mechanisms for getting other editors into the fray did not work at all, and I can't very well force a move down the third party's throat only because I happen to agree with Švitrigaila... —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh... you know, it wouldn't really bother me. :o) Švitrigaila 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Suggest that you call the Vatican (or better yet, pray) for advice, compromise on Pope Stephen 2.5 or solve this the traditional Wikipedia way by edit-warring until all of you get blocked, and the article is then overwritten as a POV fork of a no-name Norvegian death metal band called Pøpe Stefän 111. But I'm not going to peruse in depth three pages of convoluted historical debates about popes for the purpose of helping you along that path, so speedy keep and get off my AfD, please. (Seriously now, why don't you try to solicit the advice of other knowledgeable editors, e.g. active contributors to Papacy-related articles?) Sandstein 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I go on travel on Vatican City next week to make my investigations in the secret archives. I hadn't thought yet thout about Pope Stephen 2.5, but I thought about Pope Stephen π. And seriously I've tried to post this request in some strategical places on WP, with no effect. I'm too shy to ask any user personally. I dared to ask Nightstallion because he likes spetial caracters in titles, but it has no connection at all... Švitrigaila 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may add something: the issue is not a historical one. I think everybody agree about the facts themselves, so there is no need to find a pope specialist (a papologist ?) The issue is about the better way to name articles on Wikipedia. Everybody can have his word on it. Švitrigaila 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Even if Švitrigaila's solution were suitable to the problem, the page in question would be needed to implement it. AfD is for titles that should not exist, and even tho they & i disagree about what the content should be, it must exist.
  --Jerzy•t 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  
• Comment have you tried Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Current surveys? Thryduulf 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jerzy. If language is the barrier in this dispute, why is no one acting as a translator? Isn't there some facility for that here? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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.