Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exsurge Domine

 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 2 / Wikisource 3. No consensus''' -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exsurge Domine
Something for wikisource, perhaps. Assuming it's legit, I haven't verified it. -R. fiend 16:53, 28 Jan 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.
 * Keep. It's legitimate, and we have articles on other papal bulls (see list at papal bull). The lead is a decent stub, just the actual bull text has to be removed. JoaoRicardo 23:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't the translation copyrighted? There's a credit at the bottom.  Whether it is or not, we either must move it to Wikisource or delete the text.  I vote Move to Wikisource.  RickK 23:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikisource, perhaps add a redirect too. Megan1967 00:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The stubby intro wasn't there when I nominated this. Might as well keep that (and hopefully expand), but still transwiki or delete the text of the bull. -R. fiend 01:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * delete the text of the bull. I wish I could use that language on a lot of other VfD votes.  :)  RickK 01:27, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but summarise the text of the bull rather than keeping the full (and probably copyrighted) translation. A section should be added on the effect of the bull on church teachings, as well. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 07:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the stub, and Move the text to wikisource, copyvio pending Lectonar 08:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)