Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popes by length of reign (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

List of popes by length of reign

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The information presented here about lengths of reigns of Popes is redundant; it is already completely contained in the main article Pope. While it is true that this page contains unique content, that content is specific to Peter and much of it is also irrelevant to the subject of length of reign. It should therefore be transferred to the main article Pope, or possibly Saint Peter. Robin S 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as table in main article. Jerry 01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge put the table into the pope article Crested Penguin 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not redundant, it is a unique presentation of the data which is the subject of the article. The discussion of Saint Peter's longevity is of interest in itself apart from the Saint Peter biography.  Also, why such a short time for a 2nd nomination for WP:AFD after a vote to keep?  It's only been 73 days since the last nomination. What's different about that list on March 18 compared to January 3,2007? patsw 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The information is presented identically in the article Pope. The discussion of Saint Peter's longevity alone does not merit an entire article. The first AfD discussion may not have noticed the duplication of the information in Pope, or the information may have been transferred there as a consequence of the discussion. Either way, the article is in my opinion no longer viable. Robin S 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Pope article is already over sized and needs to be broken into smaller bits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of popes. Ideally, List of ages of popes and maybe List of popes (graphical) should also be merged there, and the giant tables should be formatted to be exportable to whatever database sorting program people want to use to sort them by age and hair color. If that should prove impractical, then keep, but maybe rename List of Catholic popes by length of reign for the sake of NPOV. Eldereft 06:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as sortable table. There should be only one list of popes. Having several lists with basically the same information is redundant. It could be made into a sortable table, see List of Wii games for an example of how this can be done.Dr bab 10:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. For goodness sake can't we come up with some rule that says an article can only be nominated once in a six month period or something? At least doing that would give editors the chance to improve the article, before it got nominated again! Jcuk 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge in to Pope article - • The Giant Puffin •  13:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless at worst, about a notable subject, helps keep main Pope article less cluttered, and potentially interesting or useful for folks who like things listed this way. -- Infrogmation 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge to the main article.-- Pre ston  H (Sandbox) •  (Sign Here!) 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above, moreover, WP is not a paper encyclopedia! -- Librarianofages 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge this popecruft :-) Guy (Help!) 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - put a column in the "List of Popes" table(s) for length of service in the role, then make the table sortable. - fchd 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep these kinds of lists are what make Wikipedia great. Xanucia 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The articles suggested to merge to are already large enough and there's no reason to delete it, so keep it. — Pious7Talk Contribs 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to those who have suggested merging, I would like to remind you that the information is already contained here in exactly the same form, so a "merge" would in fact amount to out-and-out deletion. Personally, I am in favour of a sortable table in List of popes, as Dr bab suggested (I was not previously aware that this was possible). Robin S 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the Wikipedia policy on merging pages. Merging is very different from deletion (even when it only involves redirecting) as the articles' history is preserved, which might be required to fullfill the GFDL in cases where information was taken from this article to the main one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it not only lists the popes, but also discusses some of the material used to calculate these periods. The article could use better sourcing though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by date of statehood, List of U.S. states by area, List of U.S. states by elevation, List of U.S. states by GDP (nominal), List of U.S. states by GDP per capita (nominal), List of U.S. states by population, List of U.S. states by population density, List of U.S. states by time zone, and List of U.S. states by unemployment rate I will give deference to some people wanting to look at the list of popes so arranged. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep how many ways can we slice the list of popes and have it be encyclopedic? By date of reign seems (pardon the pun) canonical. By how many cardinals he made? By how tall he was? or By how many illegitimate children he fathered, seems clearly popecruft. By length of reign? Close calls as there may be nothing particularly notable about the length of a pope's reign, there are other lists where the listees are sliced by notable things: see, e.g.,
 * Comment: You'll love List of United States Presidents by height order. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC) :)
 * Merge - Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate source of information or lists. Ronbo76 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. A sortable list would be a better choice then having multiple copies of the same data. The fact that there are other lists have not be reduced to one is not a justification for this list to be kept.  Maybe the other lists need to be reduced instead of keeping this one. Vegaswikian 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pope is too long (55k) per article size guideline; move redundant info from that one to this one.  CMummert · talk 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the original article length. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The pope article is already rather long.  A merge between the two may have merit, but is better suited to discussion on the talk page rather than AFD.  -- Black Falcon 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - basically all that needs to happen is for the table to be made sortable. That shouldn't significantly affect the size of the main article. - fchd 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is 55k, but the recommended limit before splitting is considered is 32k. So splitting out the list of popes is a natural way to reduce the size of the main article per Article size.  In such a case, because the split is only because of excessive size of the main article, we have to be more generous in judging the notability of the split article. CMummert · talk 00:01, 24 March 2007 (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.