Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI


 * 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   speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure)  Jay Jay What did I do? 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page as it stands is significantly overlapping with Pope_Benedict_XVI. So why do we need a content fork for this? He's in his mid 80's and has some health problems, which are understandable reasons for him to abdicate. There is no controversy leading him to resign that would become notable in its own right. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

last]] two popes who resigned are most famous for their resignations. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I certainly can't defend the state of the article at present. But assuming that the resignation actually occurs on February 28 as planned, it will be a monumental historical event.  It might even set a new precedent, where in the future popes will regularly resign if they become very feeble; in that case it will be a huge historical event.  But if it's an anomoly, it remains notable as the only papal resignation in almost 600 years.  Either way, it could very well be viewed centuries from now as the most notable decision made during this pontificate; the [[Pope Celestine V|
 * I see some WP:CRYSTAL ball type assumptions in your argument, like that it might set a precedent. Just because one pope doesn't want to serve until his death doesn't mean the next one will also resign. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no crystal ball required to say: either this will set a precedent or it won't.  If it sets a precedent, it is notable because it will be a historic turning point.  If it does not set a precedent, it is notable because it will be a rare anomaly.  Either way, it's notable.  No crystal ball needed. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a historical event, the first pope in 600 years to resign. Sounds like a pretty big deal to me. The actual resignation isn't until the 28 so for now, it probably won't be in the best of shape, but once it happens, there will be more information available. Why don't we just nominate Resignation of Richard Nixon for deletion too. &mdash; Dpm12 -- 12:21 PM PST 11 February 2013.
 * There is no article at Resignation of Richard Nixon, just a redirect to Richard Nixon. So, thanks for proving my point. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there is an article on Nixon's resignation. It's called Watergate scandal.  If Pope Benedict's retirement eventually is given a special name, this article can be renamed. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Watergate scandal clearly meets EVENT. This doesn't; it fails WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.154.159.97 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - since AfD is not a vote, it would really help move the discussion along if you could provide a rationale to keep the article. Thank you and happy editing! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no question that the announced resignation has been noted in reliable sources (lots of 'em), and thus is likely to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. If the content at Pope_Benedict_XVI is superior to this content, then merge it here or, after discussion, redirect this back to there, as with the Nixon example above. It's been how many hours since the announcement? Better to discuss it without the threat of deletion, where you might actually get some consensus, rather than the stricter up or down vote you're gonna find here at AFD. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep-The article as it is right now isn't very good, but as information comes to light, it'd be easier to have a separate article instead of the overly long article on the Pope right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.154.18 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Ultraexactzz. Gage (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is tonnes of coverage of this, and it is notable. His resignation sets a precedent as the first pope to resign in modern times. I suspect that there will also be lots of speculation/conspiracy theories about this which would be better off here, rather than in the Popes own article. wrt Nixon, there is an article on the Watergate scandal, which led to his resignation.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Very historical event. Vivafilipinas. (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep ...Here we go again, another editor not understanding the significance of an event, see WP:EVENT
 * Keep It is a rare event which warrants its own page. Considering the Benedict XVI article alone is 176k then a separate article on his resignation would be a prudent course of action. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is an extremely rare event that will attract a lot of coverage. The last pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415. ComputerJA (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons already stated. Also, the answer to the content fork issue is to trim down what is at Pope Benedict XVI once the immediate crush of editing trails off. For instance, there is no good reason why an article the length of Benedicts's should include the full seven-paragraph resignation letter. -Rrius (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons already stated, plus the event has sufficient ancilliary detail to justify an article in its own right. The initial announcement was a scoop by a correspondent in another room who spoke latin, the resignation raises the possibility of a pope and an ex-pope alive at the same time (!), there is also the question of whether his immunity from prosecution in his capacity as head of state of the Vatican carries over after his resignation or lays him open to prosecution abroad (cf Pinochet). Sources are already examining these issues and the article can be expanded to be a rather neat standalone article. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most Strong Keep not because I'm Italian, but because the notability of the Event is definitively out of question. dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep His event has set off shockwaves around the world. Considering the already lengthy size of Benedict's page, and the rarity of this event (no pope has resigned in almost 600 years), a split seems nice. Canuck 89 (converse with me)  23:40, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Extremely notable event because he is the first pope to resign since the 15th Century. Also in terms of significance this is on a par with the Abdication of Edward VIII, though for different reasons. What is important here is that both are/were heads of state who resigned from an office that is usually a lifelong responsibility, and are therefore historical events in the timeline of their respective countries. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it might be snowing in here... Canuck 89 (what's up?)  00:48, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SNOW.... the deletion request is the usual silly knee-jerk request concerning any new article, no matter how important the topic. And this topic is important. The Catholic Church is a very large entity and the resignation of its CEO has not occurred in six hundred years. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also urge an admin to close as there appears to be a pro keep consensus. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 01:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and close. His resignation is noteworthy and deserves its own article. The nominator's rationale is quite muddled. Majoreditor (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2013 (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.