Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •
 * Content fork. Catholic views on Mary are already covered sufficiently in Mary (mother of Jesus) and Roman Catholic Mariology
 * Content fork. Catholic views on Mary are already covered sufficiently in Mary (mother of Jesus) and Roman Catholic Mariology


 * Also, this article reproduces content from several other "Marian" articles including:
 * Mariology of the popes
 * Mariology of the saints
 * Marian Apparitions
 * Marian feast days
 * Titles of Mary
 * Rosary
 * Scapular
 * Rosary and scapular
 * Rosary devotions and spirituality
 * Mariology
 * Hymns to Mary
 * Roman Catholic Marian music
 * Marian litanies
 * Marian devotions
 * Roman Catholic Marian art
 * Roman Catholic Marian churches
 * Roman Catholic Marian Movements and Societies
 * Marian shrines
 * Consecration and entrustment to Mary

and the multiple "Our Lady of" articles such as Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima. Entire article is a duplication. Also, Blessed Virgin Mary has already been merged into Mary (mother of Jesus) which itself is almost entirely the Catholic view of Mary. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Malke: If you think some articles need to be merged, you need to use WP:MERGE and place merge flags, as you have done in several recent cases. An Afd is not to be used as a "surrogate for WP:MERGE". This Afd is a follow on to recnt mass Afd tags and is clearly the result of an ongoing edit dispute, as discussed below. Also, there is no need to make a long line by line list to attract attention, you can just list the articles above on 2 lines. We can all still read them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Makle2010, have you read all these articles? The "Our Lady"s are about Marian apparitions with prophesies and messages given by Mary.. viewed in different places by different people, not about the biblical views or historical views of Mary, or even marian doctrine. Rosary and devotions, etc, are absolutely worthy of being their own article.. as are, I believe, ALL these articles. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Rationale and facts are as follows:


 * There is no doubt that the nominator, user:Malke2010, has been involved in an ongoing, long term editing dispute on this page. The continuing series of debates on the talk page attest to the existence of these editing disputes involving the nominator.


 * This is the 7th Afd tag placed by the nominator in the past 10 days on articles related to this topic. The previous mass deletion Afd tags are listed here. This page was also the subject of a September 28, 2010 merge proposal by this nominator. The merge proposal was rejected. There were also a large number of related Afds by this nominator today, after this Afd was posted and discussed, listed below on this page. There are too many Afds by this nominator to produce an easy count here, since they keep re-appearing.


 * Other users have commented that some of the previous Afd tags by this nominator were attempts at resolving editing disputes through deletions. Other Afds on the topic by this nominator were speedily rejected.


 * This is a "really clear cut case" of an Afd nominator having an ongoing, long term editing dispute on the nominated page and therefore based on WP:SK #2.4 a speedy conclusion is the appropriate, policy-based course of action. History2007 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's about removing the endless duplication of articles about Mary. You want it to appear as an edit problem.  That's called "wagging the dog." Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per reasons already displayed by History2007. Just the fact that this is even a delete request and not a merge request tends to show WP:POINT.Marauder40 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a merge request and it was rejected. Anyway, I agree with the WP:POINT issue as well. Two WP:POINT warnings have been issued to this nominator in the past 2 months, and multiple editors have stated that there have been WP:POINT breaches in other cases. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Maybe it's time to decide which "Virgin Mary" article's to keep and merge the rest into one or two of them. It's starting to get silly regarding the "fights" going on (and I'm sure Mary wouldn't approve of it, no matter "which one"); And furthermore I think it's time to decide on a main "Virgin Mary" article which would/should carry most of what can be said about her and split (only) parts that would be extending it beyond reasonable prose to read.TMCk (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. That may or may not be a separate discussion, but using repeated WP:POINT Afds to make that point is not the way to do it. This Afd is a clear case of WP:SK and WP:POINT in which an Afd is made by an editor (well known to you) with a long history of editing disputes on the nominated page. A clear case of an Afd on a page with previous edit disputes. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this would be a (in part) separate discussion and my comment is meant to encourage one instead of going back and fore-wards with those AFD's that have some merit and other discussions elsewhere to come to a final agreement (which way to go) in a collaborative sense. Your edit dispute between you and Malke is not of any importance in that matter as it doesn't serve WP at all if I may say so and determine if the AFD is "pointy" or not isn't helping either. I placed a comment only expressing my thoughts without giving my "vote" keeping or deleting this particular article for the reason I laid out above.TMCk (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a discussion about which Marian pages should be merged and which shouldn't should take place but I disagree that they should happen on a AfD. I think it just confuses the issue.  The previous merge request for merging this page and the Mary (mother of Jesus) page came to a consensus that a page was needed to represent the Catholic viewpoint since it is so different from the mainstream non-Catholic viewpoint.  A discussion on what to call that article was subverted by numerous merge requests and AfDs that have taken time away from actual editing. IMHO the contents of this article is the best starting point for the Catholic perspective of Mary (whatever the article is called.)  Many of the other articles are there for keeping this article a manageable size.  Can some of them disappear? Probably.  Like I am not real sure why we have a History of Roman Catholic Mariology‎ and a Roman Catholic Mariology‎ page, but I think a discussion listing every Catholic marian article and deciding which should be merged and which shouldn't needs to take place somewhere else. Marauder40 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that the catholic view of Mary differs from other views and might deserve it's own article, sub-article of a still to determine main article to make it more clear and catching on my post above. And yes, a merger discussion should take place somewhere else than on this AFD and if that would seriously happen I don't think there would be more AFD's about article's about Mary as those discussions could determine which article's should be kept, rewritten or deleted. Unless such basic discussion is taking place I see no end and no reason nominating some of those pages for deletion. Somehow this is the wrong venue to discuss this but till there is another more reasonable venue to cut out the roots of the problem it will (my guess) end up again and again at AFD.TMCk (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * TMC, Your statement that "this is the wrong venue to discuss this" is totally correct. An Afd is not the way to do this. But regarding "I see no end and no reason nominating some of those pages for deletion", that will naturally end when Afd tags have been placed on them all and rejected, and much time has been wasted, or when some administrator will rightly apply WP:POINT to end the process. This Afd is clearly subject to WP:POINT, as you seem to know. And since we talked about Cortisol below, I just noticed that its article needs help. Should I type here, or go fix that? And let us all watch out for Afd-induced Cortisol. That may become a new medical phenomenon now. History2007 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you're being a bit pointy yourself (re. Cortisol article). Anyhow, I meant to say "''I see no end and no reason to not nominating some of those pages for deletion." but I see you understood me anyways. Now, any venue in mind to open a basic discussion? Is there a project page where this could be handled? Don't count on me arguing there but I think it would be helpful to the project having a link here to such page no matter how the AFD turns out.TMCk (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Lyricmac (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reason you'd like to add?TMCk (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably should be merged or consolidated. Lyricmac (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction to above...possibly be merged or consolidated so long as Catholic beliefs re: Mary are presented in clear and concise manner. Some content forking is probably inevitable when discussing this topic(I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt if an editor has made a good faith effort to present RC Mariology in a precise manner while drawing comparisons taken from other articles).  I've noticed that some folks seem to get a burr in their saddle when discussing such ticklish subjects as religion;  I'd suggest that showing the other fellow some civility on this is probably the best policy (just the opinion of an old and obsolete teacher).Lyricmac (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. TMCk has a good point.  We could do a multiple listing of the redundant articles and merge everything.  That would eliminate the redundancy in all the articles and open them up to other editors.  Note also that there is ownership issues with BVM RC.  Just check out the embedded messages when you try to edit there.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though your comments about your "battle" with History2007 have no bearing on the content of the page, could you please point out the ownership issues with the page? Please give one example in the last three months of someone other then you being reverted on the page (not including vandalism edits.) Marauder40 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On that note Marauder, I am having serious doubts if I will receive a Christmas card this year from some of the editors on this page.... Time will tell... History2007 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Marauder probably will send you one and so will I if you give me an address (a PO BOX will do) since I don't send virtual cards. Mary X-mas, TMCk (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You know TMC, that is a much better tone now than all this Cortisol-raising type of discussion. By the way, Marauder did not send me one last year.... All others who will send, please confirm herein. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'll send you one if I get some address which is not virtual (yet non-disclosing); And maybe Marauder will send you one too this year? As for what you perceive as a "cortisol-raising-discussion", that might be how you experience the "tone''" but is not necessarily the case for others and neither has it to be for you.TMCk (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries my friend. You made a nice gesture to try to send, and that is good enough. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, well then, thanks and have a good one. I guess I call it a night. But still, please think about my comment further above.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with TMCk and Malke2010 that several Marian articles should be merged (and this one should be kept in order for that to happen). Several merges have begun recently, as most who have commented here are aware. This AfD nom with the intent of merging is, I think, a bit out of place. I propose that a larger-scale merge effort be undertaken by interested editors. A common template should be dropped onto the articles in question, referring to a new "talk" page (both could even be in my userspace) that facilitates discussion of eliminating the redundant and very hard to navigate articles (as well as identifying other articles applicable to the merge). Also, this process of consolidation seems to lead to more than one final article, so sorting out where the final content will come from and which titles best represent the content is another discussion that should take place on neutral/central ground (with respect to the articles involved). –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 00:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually Paul, I started on the path to consolidation with a merge proposal on October 25, 2010, to begin to systematically merge some articles. However, the current nominator opposed that, and we were then side-tracked by mass Afds that I found quite distracting and a waste of effort. I do think there is need for some systematic consolidation, but this Afd is not the way to do it. Wikipedia policy needs to be respected and WP:Merge is the proper protocol, not this. This needs to be the subject of a speedy conclusion, as indicated above. History2007 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul I am all for you proposal. Opening up a sub-talk page on say the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page and discussing all the Catholic Marian articles and which should be merged and which shouldn't would IMHO be a great idea.  Linking to it from the Catholic project page would be required. Similar things have been discussed on different talk pages before but been derailed by the numerous AfDs. The only pre-requisite to creating this discussion page would be shutting down all the existing AfDs.  Having them in place when a seperate discussion is going on whould confuse the issue and could lead to uninvolved people making decisions only based on the evidence on the corresponding AfD. Added:  I even set up a sample framework for a discussion page User talk:Marauder40/marian Marauder40 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge into I think we're all agreed that some of these articles should be merged together, but I don't think there's any consensus for deleting this one as part of the merging. Dylan   Flaherty  01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Dylan that as part of the consolidation, this article will eventually have to grow, not be deleted. How and what will make this grow is a discussion per WP:Merge and not this type of Afd for a page on which the nominator has had ongoing editing disputes. It just does not look right. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per reasons already displayed by History2007. The fact that this wasn't even tagged for a discussion to merge is rediculous. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment And, for that matter, I do not think the article should be merged either. I support it being its own article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and Close For the very good reasons that were already stated. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There we go again: A number of unjustified Afds are appearing all over the place now. In my view these Afds by this nominator are clearly disruptive to a constructive discussion about consolidation. The growing list of Afds by this nominator is as follows:


 * Articles for deletion/History of the rosary (which was split off from Rosary for the sake of clarity) and contains information which appears nowhere else.


 * Articles for deletion/Marian apparition which also contains information which appears nowhere else.


 * Articles for deletion/Hymns to Mary article needs work, but info is again not present elsewhere


 * Articles for deletion/Rosary and scapular again, contains information which appears nowhere else.


 * Articles for deletion/Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters The nominator had suggested a merge 10 days ago, suddenly removed flag and used an Afd.


 * These are in addition to this list of concluded and rejected Afds by this nominator in the past 10 days. I think something needs to be done to stop WP:disruptive editing here. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm sure everyone has noticed by now that History2007 and his "supporters" all focus on the nominator and not the merits of keeping the article.  Obviously, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a content fork.  Not a single "supporter" has shown one policy reason why the article should be kept, nor have they proven that the article is not a content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke I believe you have been warned by numerous people including Moonriddengirl before about lumping together "supporter"s of people as if they do not have a thought of their own. Everyone on here has their own opinions, just because those opinions are different from yours doesn't mean they are wrong.  Please respect the fact that everyone has an opinion.  Numerous reasons have been given for the keep, just because you don't agree doesn't make them valid.  I personally think this entire comment needs retracted. Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And you prove my point. Not a single word is offered above for why this article should be kept.  Not one reason why this article isn't a blatant content fork.  Just more of the same focus put on the nominator, including false accusations, and not on the merits of the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is obvious why people are addressing your actions. Your actions do not reflect someone that is working within consensus to develop the WP project and the Catholicism sections within the project within consensus.  Mass delete requests do not help, they only inflame.  There are many better ways for dealing with this situation.  I honestly thing admin intervention may be needed soon.  At the least the intervention should prohibit you from starting any new Merge/Delete requests.  This is a clear case of point.  I personally am suprised that speedy keep hasn't already been invoked on this page for content dispute reasons.Marauder40 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Supporters" are not addressing the rationale for either deleting or keeping the article. Focus on the article for AfD and not the nominator.  See WP:AGF.  Also, see WP:AFD.  It specifically states your disputes should not be argued here.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not fair to delete a perfectly good article because someone (Malke) is upset and unforgiving that their unnecessary deletion tags are being argued against. The fact that you nominated at least six Marian articles for deletion does not help your position, but rather strengthens mine, and many other editors', opposition. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'''Attention "Supporters" for "Keep." Please show 1 reason why this article is not a duplication of all those listed above. Show 1 reason Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is not a content fork: ''' Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly think this is entirely inappropriate, this is like saying why does the United States article exist, when we have the U.S. state article, the Federal government of the United States, United States Constitution article, and the List of National Parks of the United States article. You obviously need a starting point for the Catholic understanding of Mary and this is it.  Just like someone would go to the US page and branch out from there.  They would do the same for the Mary page.  As has been addressed numerous times on this page, some consolidation of Marian pages is appropriate.  Your methods are not working within consensus.Marauder40 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are demonstrating again that you have no policy to show, nothing to prove by the article itself, not one thing to point to that shows this article is not a content fork. Just proves my point. This sounds like the flea argument that the kid in school writes when he can't answer the question about the dog.  So he writes about the fleas on the dog.  Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is extrememly innapropriate. You do not own any of these pages Malke. Stop trying to rid wikipedia of Marian pages. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Malke: Please read this. You made similar statements before during the previous round. History2007 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Malke you obviously don't understand the idea of portals. Why do we have a Catholic Church page, a Criticism of the Catholic Church, a History of the Catholic Church and a List of popes?  Why aren't they all part of the Catholic Church page?  Because the information in one place is to much and things need to be split out.  Same thing goes with Marian articles.  There is two much information to fit within the size constraints of an article.  Also some of the things you list are only related topics and entirely different subjects.  Just because the Rosary is Marian, doesn't mean the entire topic belongs on the main Catholic Mary page.  It honestly seems like you have a myopic view of this topic. Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very valid point. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Admins: Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a content fork and should be deleted per policy. The wider community consensus is with the policy and guidelines that address content forks and it is not with the limited consensus of "supporters" here, especially as they have not demonstrated that this is not a content fork.  The hatnotes at the top of the page alone prove that it is, as do the dozen or so articles it duplicates.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect example of why SK 2.4 needs to be invoked.Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Give one reason why this article is not a blatant content fork. Focus on that one issue.  That is what this AfD is about.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have to answer to you. As far as I know you aren't the admin that is dealing with this article.  I am currently only have to justify why this is a SK#2.4 issue in my normal comments.  If this delete page isn't determined to be SK then maybe I will go into more details.  Honestly the sections like this to the admins are usually counterproductive and unneeded.  They are usually smart enough to figure out things on their own without input from the editors beyond their normal comments.  You seem to be helping out on the SK#2.4 justifications all by yourself.Marauder40 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's called wagging the dog. History2007 and his "supporters" do that all the time on every AfD.  Same argument, different AfD.  Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment We have minds and opinions of our own Malke, thank you very much. We are not "Supporters" of any other editor. We clearly have simply in common that we are against all your deletion tags. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Commment Malke the article is only a content fork to the extent that it reproduces material already contained on other Mary related articles. If you want to remove the content fork, then you should delete the part of the article where it reproduces already existing content. After this has been done, the remaining content will not constitute a content fork, since Blessed Virgin Mary is a really separate topic to the historical Mary. Avaya1 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is clear that Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is separate topic to the biblical figure of Mary. There's no advantage to deleting this article, since it is informative on the separate topic of Catholic Marian veneration (however, reproduced material should obviously be deleted). Equally, there is no advantage to merging it with the article on the biblical Mary, since that would merely clutter up that page.Avaya1 (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Avaya1 that the article must be kept. However, I think it is also clear that hypertext-based information delivery does require some summarization, with an expansion via a Main. So let us ask: is History of the automobile a content fork of automobile? Is Automotive industry a content fork of automobile? Is List of countries by motor vehicle production a content fork of Automotive industry ? Is Kinematics a content fork of Classical mechanics? Is Circular motion a content fork of Kinematics? There is a clear pattern here among these articles: a summarization, with a expansion via Main. Here the article for automobile acts as the backbone that leads to the other articles on the topic, as does Classical mechanics. That is how hypertext works. That is how most of Wikipedia is structured:


 * There is a paragraph or two giving the general idea.
 * There is a Main that expands the idea.
 * The interested user clicks on the Main to zoom in.


 * Else the Classical mechanics article would be a long book on physics. Instead it is a manageable article with hyper-expansions. This style of "hypert-text based" information presentation is used throughout Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Deletion is the best solution. The identical information is already covered in Roman Catholic Mariology.  Very little new information would need to be added.  Malke 2010 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please overlook the bolding of deletion above, given that it is by the nominator and can not be a vote. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all for now - and merge whatever needs to be done so at a later time. Marian devotion is such a huge topic in the RC Church, and so much as been written on it, that having several articles is logical.  I am sure there is some redundancy, and probably some things need to be merged, but AfD is not for the purpose of resolving content disputes. Disclosure: I am a former Roman Catholic, now Anglo-catholic member of ECUSA. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's better to follow Wikipedia policy which states redundant content forking is unacceptable. This article is clearly a content fork and loaded with redundant material. At the very least, the redundant content should be deleted and whatever bits survive should be merged into Roman Catholic Mariology.  I agree with Avaya1 that there should not be a merge to Mary (mother of Jesus) as that focuses on the historical Mary.  Roman Catholic Mariology already covers all aspects of the Catholic take on the Virgin Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are talking about content forking even though you created Catholic views on Mary (which was merged later thank goodness), how does that work? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

General comments: When user:Bearian voted "keep", he made a good comment in the summary line, namely: "Marian devotion is such a huge topic in the Roman Catholic Church, and so much as been written on it, having several articles is logical." That is a valid point, and given the discussion here about Mary, Mariology, etc. it will make sense to ask a few general questions:


 * Is Mineralogy a content fork of Mineral? No, minerology is the study of minerals. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.


 * Is Geology a content fork of Earth? No, geology is the study of the Earth. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.


 * Is Cosmetology a content fork of Cosmetics? No, Cosmetology is the study of cosmetics and treatments thereof. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.


 * Is Mariology a content fork of Mary? No, Mariology is the study of Mary. Should they be merged? No, because each is a concept in itself. The relate to each other, but are distinct topics and need distinct entries.


 * Is Psychology a content fork of psyche? etc. etc. etc.

It is clear that within Wikipedia the "study of an item" is distinct from the item itself. Christology is not the same as Christ, Mariology is not the same as Mary and Minerology is not the same as mineral. Marilogy is distinct from Mary, just as Christology is distinct from Christ. Christology is the study of Christ, Mariology is the study of Mary. There are book son Christology and there are books om Christ. There are books on Mariology and there are books on Mary. And the treatment of the subject is very different in the books on Christ and Christology, etc. etc.

Now, let us ask:


 * Why is the article History of geology distinct from geology?
 * Why is the article History of mineralogy distinct from minerology?
 * Why is the article History of Mariology distinct from Mariology?
 * Why is the article History of psychology distinct from psychology?

If we assume that A% of the Wikipedia audience wants to know about psychology and B% wants to know about the History of psychology, it is easy to check via page access clicks that A is usually larger than B. In general, 10 times as many people click on psychology than on the History of psychology and the numbers for minerology and its history are even more distinct. Wikipedia users just interested in psychology do need to be burdened in the same article with the details of its history. That is the concept of hypertext: click and zoom for more information.

And uniformity of presentation should be kept in mind. Just as minerals, the study of minerals and the history of the study of minerals are distinct, the same applies to Mary, Mariology and its history. Does it make sense to put Afd tags on mineral, minerology, and Histoy of minerology all at once? No. It does not.

Do we need more examples here? I am sure it is clear now that within a "hypertext-based" information presentation system such as Wikipedia, it does not make sense, nor is it a general strategy, to creat just one long article that includes every conceivable item. So two final questions to ask:


 * Is it advisable, or common practice within Wikipedia to put "mass Afd tags" on many articles on a topic on the same day? No, not at all.


 * Are mass Afd tags on a single topic helpful, productive or cooperative? No, not at all.

I think this mass Afd problem needs to be concluded, and cooperation, or administrative action, to avoid this type of issue will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is not just a content fork, it's also a POV content fork. Veneration of Mary should take a paragraph, not two dozen articles all saying the exact same thing.  And always with St. Louis de Montfort and his True Devotions.  And everything is cited with trivial citations from Google book previews.  Wikipedia policy states that redundant content forks are inappropriate and should be deleted.  Also, the wider community consensus supports this policy and that takes precedence over the consensus generated by a small group of editors at one point in time.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke, I would not say that the support for these articles is by a "small" group of editors. It's staying. Too bad. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Speedy Keep: As there is support to keep I will ask an admin for a speedy keep.  In the meantime, as suggested by Paul Nyugen and Marauder, it's best to post an RfC discussion on WikiProject Catholicism that will decide how best to merge/delete the multiple Marian articles that are redundant content forks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (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.