Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Alexander II of Alexandria

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 20:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Alexander II of Alexandria

128.235.249.80 marked this vfd on April 7, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. RickK 04:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Coptic Popes are inherently notable. - Mustafaa 06:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable coptic pope. Klonimus 07:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. If an anonymous contributor puts a VfD notice on a page and never follows up with actually creating a VfD-page - isn't that just a form of vandalism which could be reverted and ignored? (Or is there a slippery slope I am missing here?) / Uppland 09:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to be as transparent as possible with these foundlings, though I do note that WP:GVFD#Nomination says, "Incomplete nominations may be discarded or ignored." I'll bear this in mind in the future, and if anyone wants to close this as a speedy keep, I have no objections. —Korath (Talk) 11:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your transparency is appreciated. The sentence in WP:GVFD#Nomination is true in several senses, as I see it. Several of these incomplete nominations have been ignored, for weeks in some cases, so it's true as a purely descriptive warning that incomplete nominations may be ignored. It's also true in that there's leeway to choose to roll back incomplete nominations, to prevent vandals from overloading the system. I'd argue that anonymity isn't the deciding factor. But lack of an edit history comment when applying the VFD notice, and lack of any attempt whatever to create a discussion page, certainly weigh heavily against completing a nomination. On the other hand the other contributions of 128.235.249.80 (talk · contribs) from the same period appear to be in good faith, and relate to a campaign to do something with a whole series of Pope articles. On the gripping hand, if that user has a reason for this nomination, xe has incentive to come back and do it properly. ☺ Uncle G 18:45, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Keep - not that his vote appears to be needed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. After all, he was Coptic Pope for 25 years so he must have done something notable in that period. Capitalistroadster 11:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I think that VfD noms by anons who don't even bother to follow through the whole process can and should be safely ignored. Especially when there's no clear reason for deletion, as is the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we might as well delete this vote already :) Oliver Keenan 19:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although this vote appears to be unneeded (everyone's agreeing) I need to say keep as all the Patriarchates of the See of Alexandria are worth notable persons. And if an Anonymous person is willing to put an article up for voting. He or she should post a reasoning. -Markio 16:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand stub. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.