Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic views on Mary


 * 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 - Dead heat here. Until such time as editors interested in this subject resolve the issues surrounding the article name and its relationship to other related articles there is no compelling reason to prematurely delete.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic views on Mary

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

POV fork of Mary (mother of Jesus) mark nutley (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —History2007 (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * * Delete No point in deleting. Previous content was deleted a few days ago. I should change my vote, given that the article has been effectively deleted, with all the previous content disappearing. It is now marked for rescue, so it will be rescued. History2007 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The history of this page is as follows: This merge proposal was initiated by user:Malke2010. The proposal faced strong opposition. Once the merge proposal seemed doomed, large amounts of text were rapidly trucked to this page from other pages as a content fork (e.g. see this existing page), as pointed out by user:mark nutley. There is no new content in this page, except via "rapid cut and paste" from other articles. And the page's title and direction are in effect rapid replicas of the Roman Catholic Marian page that Malke2010 wanted merged, but was not successful based on the views of other editors. Malke2010 has since suggested that the article she wanted to merge before should merge here. So first the attempt was made to merge "A" with "B", and when the merge attempt was about to fail, article "C" was created here overnight and a suggestion to merge "A" with "C" was made. I see this as a WP:POINT issue, as explained on Talk:Catholic_views_on_Mary and as a clear content fork, created by "rapid text trucking". A simple look at this existing page shows that this is just a "rapid content fork" created to make a point. There is no new content here, except a fork. History2007 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with all that is stated by History2007. This article was created as a method for a user to create an article in their own image instead of using existing article. This flies in the very idea of working within consensus.  On Mary (mother of Jesus) page one of the suggestions was to change the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page to this name.  This amounts to going around a discussion happening on that page and "parking" an article in its place.Marauder40 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article was created in line with other "view" articles, such as Protestant views on Mary. I find it odd for History2007 to argue that this article was created to meet an editor's personal agenda when History2007 created a fork article on Mary (mother of Jesus) with his Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) article. History2007 argued that his article should be kept because somehow the Catholic Mary was different than the Christian Mary. He merely wants this article deleted so in case he loses the deletion discussion of his article, his fork can then become this article, rather than it be merged into the main Mary article. History2007 can't have it both ways, he can't say "mine should be kept, but just in case, this needs to be deleted so I have someplace to put mine." [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Interesting perspective, yet incorrect both in fact and logic. The article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) was created by another editor on May 14, 2008 and not myself. Protestant views on Mary was also created in May 2008, by yet another editor. The two articles have existed in parallel for long as the Catholic and Protestant views on Mary. History2007 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have misread something somewhere, I thought I saw you say it was your article or you created it. Hunh, weird. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  03:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "Catholic" Mary and "Christian" Mary are the same Mary. Firstly, because Mary was one person, and secondly, because Catholicism is part of Christianity. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should agree that the title Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is inappropriate, as it implies an identity separate from that covered in the main article (and of greater spiritual import). ―cobaltcigs 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Do not accuse editors of things that are not true, you were making assumptions about his edits. As History2007 has stated, the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) has been around for a long time. Malke created this page after it was agreed that BVM (RC) would NOT be merged with Mary (Mother of Jesus). This page is basically copying BMV (RC) and should be deleted. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge -- The article Mary (mother of Jesus) indicates that there are no less than three "main" articles relating to the Catholic view of Mary. Her importance in the Catholic version of Christianity indicates that a sub-article will be appropriate, but surely we do not need THREE: one should be enough.  This does not offend against WP:POV, because it is about a widely held POV not merely expressing a POV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * May I just ask which articles are you proposing to merge? Marauder40 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point out that Malke2010 has twice deleted the merge flags regarding the article. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally, merge discussions are not proposed separately during AfDs, as merge is a valid conclusion of an AfD. Having two separate discussions running at the same time to determine the fate of one article is a bit irregular and is likely to split participants. I would imagine it would be better to focus conversation here, since "merge" is a valid (and not uncommon) outcome of AfD. (I also notice that some people at the "merge" discussion have voted for deletion here; I just want to make sure that everyone remembers that for copyright reasons content that is merged must be properly attributed; if the contributors are not specifically and properly named when content is copied, the source articles must be and cannot then be deleted. See Copying within Wikipedia for more information.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the general thought by people that voted in both is outright deletion is better, but giving the creator the benefit of the doubt that there might be something useful in the new page. At least a couple editors see little to no value in the current article thus a delete is better, thus eliminating any copyright issues. Much better then one editors solution proposed on the Mary (mother of Jesus) page for merge of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and this page. Marauder40 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better, then, to close the later discussion and to indicate here when the opinion is "delete or, if not, merge". This will be closed by an administrator, of course, and it will be very helpful to the admin judging consensus if significant conversations about the matter are held in one place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally see no problem closing the merge but I figure it best left to History2007 to close it since he started it.Marauder40 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he will consider it. If the article closes as keep and significant concerns remain, a "merge" discussion would probably be useful. The separate discussion right now will probably just complicate the closure for whatever admin winds up with it. In any event, it should not be merged while this AfD is open; since the AfD may close for "delete" and since AfDs can also close for "merge", there doesn't seem any advantage that would necessitate the simultaneous discussions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Moonriddengirl, Maraurder seems to have two 'votes' here, it's either merge or delete, he can't have both, correct?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can delete and merge still if proper attribution is supplied, as I mentioned above. However, most admins read a "merge and delete" argument as "keep and merge". See Merge and delete for more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On this page I have one vote, it is delete. On a separately started vote on a separate page I voted to Merge in that vote where there are only two options Merge or Don't Merge but I explicitly state that I prefer delete.  That does not equal two votes and it doesn't equal keep and merge. Marauder40 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does appear as keep/merge. Perhaps you should clarify that and/or redact one them.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the few copied paragraphs within this article are generating a new variation of much ado about nothing. Given that this article is by and large "free of new content", in the end there is so little to delete or merge, either way it is no big deal. But its fate is pretty set, I think: just look at the content. There is nothing new there, beyond a simple summary of Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church anyway. That was why I suggested a re-export back there. Now as a matter of interest MRG, is there a Wikipedia policy that states that my merge flag can be deleted by another editor twice at will, regardless of looking like an edit war? If so, please point me to the policy. And as here: Marauder also complained that Malke deletes tags at will, yet places lots of tags all over the place. So as her mentor you should point out that she does not enjoy "special tag privileges". So for that matter, I would prefer to keep the merge discussion open and the tags restored. Anyway, regardless of whether this article will merge or delete, the "special tag privileges" issue needs to be clarified. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke should not be removing the tags, but that is unrelated to this discussion, which is about the fate of the article. It seems to me that having two separate discussions about it is piling on a bit of extra "ado". It seems to be generated heat without supplying any additional light. I will seek an uninvolved administrator to determine whether a secondary discussion of the fate of an article is appropriate, since I believe that this fragmentation is unhelpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I requested from Hersfold to look at it a while ago, but he has not had a chance probably. Anyway, regardless of all else the "special tag privileges" issue should be discussed. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You requested Hersfold to look at the tag removal, not whether a redundant debate on the fate of an article is appropriate. That's a different question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, either way. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 *  Comment Delete So far I don't see a good reason for this article's existence. There is a long-standing article (currently named "Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)") that covers distinctive Catholic beliefs and devotional practice to do with the Virgin Mary more comprehensively than this article, which seems to add nothing. Vote changed to Delete after seeing attempts to replace links to BVM(RC) with this article, which therefore seems to be a POV FORK.  Xan  dar  22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We already have Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a lot of confusion here about this article and the reason it was started. This article was created as a result of a discussion which attempted to resolve the problem of the POV content fork Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).  The original discussion centered on merging that article with Mary (mother of Jesus).  This all began around September 24 or so.  Today is October 10th.  Recently, I noticed that the BVM RC article was just a POV content fork and attempted to edit there, but History2007 wouldn't allow it.  I put tags on the article to alert other editors and met with resistance.  I then suggested a merger with Mary (mother of Jesus) here:, but apparently the editors over there don't want all that content about saints, etc, (BVM RC duplicates the content of 14 other articles), and so they were against it.  I then offered a compromise solution here:   As a result of that discussion, I started the article Catholic views on Mary thinking that things would finally start going forward.  This is why I only cut and pasted a few items from other articles which Moonriddengirl pointed out needed to be attributed so she helped me with that.  There was no hidden agenda, as Xandar suggests, and this has clearly not been undertaken without discussion, to the point of exhaustion, etc.  The history of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) begins with History2007 when he forked it from Blessed Virgin Mary over objections there, and he admits it was a "political move," as he didn't want to have the interference of the edit/revert/edit cycle. See here:   And at the start of this POV content fork, Ambrosius007, admitted the direction of the article was all about 'veneration.'   Over time, other editors have questioned all of this and been rebuffed.  The title Catholic views on Mary was suggested in order to establish neutral POV along the lines of other faiths such Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc.  Merging Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into Catholic views on Mary will give it a new title and open it up to new editors so that the POV content fork on veneration can be eliminated and editors will once again be allowed to contribute to this important Catholic topic.  As far as the current content on Catholic views on Mary, I am happy to rewrite it and provide original content so that it isn't a duplication, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I find this summary of what has happened laking. I will let History2007 address the earlier in history parts, but just the stating of "I noticed that the BVM RC article was just a POV content fork and attempted to edit there, but History2007 wouldn't allow it." or "editors will once again be allowed to contribute to this important Catholic topic." Shows how biased this summary is.  Malke 2010 has made a total of 4 edits to the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page that didn't involve just putting 4 tags on the article.  No other editor has been reverted (besides vandalism.) I personally reverted one of her edits because the edit did not match the cite and the cite wasn't changed.  This does not sound like "History2007 wouldn't allow it."  Other parts talk about creating this based "As a result of that discussion," on the compromise solution and things like that.  Making it sound like this discussion was going on for a long time.  One editor proposed something similar to that and that night this article was created by copying three articles and making minor changes so that it didn't appear to be an exact cut and paste. Marauder40 (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually my friend, I am speechless here, in the face of the reasoning provided in the dissertation above. Let me just say that Malke, Mr Liptak and myself must have learned logic in different schools, and leave it there. I see no logic in the account provided above and I think as a long time editor on these issues Xandar (not XandarLiptak) provided an accurate account. He had no axe to grind here and was factual. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'll have a look later today. In the meantime, let's keep both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind, shall we? I see this AFD getting awful contentious awful quick, if we're not careful. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I understood this article was created per discussions elsewhere, that all the subarticles on Mary should be in the form of "Denomination views on Mary", such as Protestant views on Mary. Since they are articles specifically meant to tell a position, that position should be clearly stated int eh title, and all articles should be similarly named for uniformity and to prevent the notion any religious denomination seems to have preference. See, when the Protestants need an article titled Protestant views on Mary, but the Catholics get the title Blessed Virgin Mary to themselves, it gives the appearance that the Catholics are right and he Protestants and others have a view on that truth, implying a wrong or flawed view. We need to avoid that. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that all subarticles on Mary having any format. Of course a discussion was started about possibly renaming of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page to be Catholic view on Mary or Roman Catholic view on Mary, etc.  That discussion was circumvented by the creation of this page.  Right now this page is camped here and would prevent the renaming of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) to this location.  Right now this page is little more then a copy of three pages and should be removed.Marauder40 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was circumvented by this AfD. The POV content fork Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) can easily be merged into Catholic views on Mary as was intended.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, since Catholic views on Mary is a new article on an important topic, and since it can be fixed with normal editing, it is not a candidate for deletion. The nominator never participated in any prior discussions, nor did he contact me to ask about the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator of an article is not required to do any of the things that you listed. This AFD is exactly what is supposed to happen.  The problem is you consider Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) to be a fork.  This is in effect the fork.  Merging BVM (RC) into this page is the secular equivilent of someone creating a page called "US Citizen views of George Washington", creating a page by copying a page about his home and 2 other minor pages and asking someone to merge the main George Washington page into it.  As I said before this is a person wanting to create a page in their own image.Marauder40 (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

random section break
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment: As a comment on the discussion above, it was interesting that the only arguments for "keeping this page" provided by the two users were in terms of criticisms of the long existing page Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), and not in terms of the merits of this page itself. So in effect, this page has had no arguments presented for its own merits of existence, except the criticism of the long standing page. On the talk page, this page was called (their term, not mine) a possible stalking horse by another user, as a way around the failing merge attempt here. Overall, I see no merits in this page itself, given that it is a hurried text copy and paste from Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. Wikipedia deserves better than this. History2007 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Commment Sorry that I don't have time to check out the articles. However it's clear to me that Mary as a part of the Catholic religion, and also in different degrees in other Christian churches, is clearly a notable topic. The actual person of the mother of Jesus should have her own article. Borock (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "views" (which I suspect really means "differences of opinion") about Jesus' mother that is the main point. But the elevation of Mary to be a sort of personification of God's feminine side by the Christian religion, especially Roman Catholics. Borock (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Mary (mother of Jesus) as a multi-perspective article and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) (with the obvious Catholic emphasis) have existed for years. As has Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. History2007 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. It would be a much simpler and more easily navigated by readers if there was a uniform format. So if we do soemthing like...


 * Mary (mother of Jesus) (I still think this should be renamed simply Mary)
 * Anglican views on Mary
 * Catholic views on Mary
 * Orthodox views on Mary
 * Protestant views on Mary

...it would allow readers to more easily understand what is a main article and what is a subarticle. Otherwise we have three articles competing for dominance. We even have one trying to be renamed Virgin Mary to compete against the main Mary (mother of Jesus) article. While thee is no requirement of format, there also is no requirement we do not format subarticle. In this instance, with so many denominations and so much that can fit in subarticles, formatting would make it easy for readers and editors alike. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a comment on "name", not on content. Naming is another issue, the AFD was not based on naming, but the AFD nominator stated that this page is a fork and that this page "was created to make a point". There seems to be no agreement as to why this page was created.


 * You seem to say it was created "as a method for doing a rename".
 * The AFD nominator said that was created to "make a point".
 * Another user said that it may be a stalking horse for a this failing merger.


 * So "what is the purpose for this page after all"? Is the purpose to provide a new name for an existing page as you suggest? If so, why not suggest a rename for the other page, with a discussion that has been ongoing here? I see no logical explanations here (except for providing criticisms of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)) as to why this page is needed at all, or what merits it has. I see no merits in this page. History2007 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I thought I should finally add my two cents as this back and forth has been something I've been watching from afar and feel is a no-brainer. This article should be deleted because its clearly a content fork. There was a lengthy merger discussion at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus) where the overwhelming number of people didn't want the page merged. Then the user who wanted the page merged, after learning of the unsuccessful result, started a new page and began writing an article on the same exact subject matter anyway. Clearly this had the effect of evading the consensus established at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus). This is not the way to do things. And it should not be tolerated despite the merits for or against having such an article. The article should be deleted and a new discussion at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus) can be started by the user regarding renaming the article "Catholic views on Mary". If consensus can be established there regarding this renaming then I don't see any problem with recreating the article "Catholic views on Mary". I'm not dismissing the fact that there are likely very good arguments that can be made for such a renaming, but it has to be done in accordance with wikipedia policy and not via these strong-arming tactics. Also, explanation should be provided there regarding whether the article "Catholic views on Mary" would be identical to "Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church".Chhe (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just a reminder. There is a compromise discussion on Mary (mother of Jesus) that clearly suggests that the name of the BMV RC be changed to Catholic views on Mary.  That is why this article was created.  As it is now, Catholic views on Mary is easily filled with relevant, new content on an important Catholic topic.  At some point in the future, BVM RC could still be merged into it, but for now, the article can easily be filled with content on this important Catholic topic.  This is why I nominated it for rescue.  It can be solved with simple editing, especially as this is a new article and should be given a chance.  Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church is a limited article and doesn't fully address views of the laity, etc., as this article will.  Afterall, it's called "Catholic views," which doesn't have to mean the Catholic Church hierarchy.  BMV RC is a POV content fork that focuses exclusively on non-Catholic views of veneration.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean: Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus), then it is easy to see that no clear conclusion regarding naming was reached there. And a rename of article "A" can not be discussed within article "B", as I said there. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   express 23:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This would be a fine topical article rooted in Mary (mother of Jesus). 'Cept there is already Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). So Catholic views on Mary (good title) actually is a POV fork of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) (POV-laden title, but a good article). So where does that leave us? Dunno. I suppose this is the one that needs to be merged away. But there needs to be some condensation via merger, because the content fork is a real thing here. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The last two comments seem to suggest that the general feeling that this page is a fork is getting endorsed. I should, perhaps, also point out that the discussion Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic) has been taking place. As stated there, I think page titles with parentheses do not work that well, and titles such as "Roman Catholic views on Mary" or "Mary in Catholicism" have been suggested for that page. So that naming discussion will proceed and a new title for that page will eventualy emerge via consensus. History2007 (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Carrite, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a POV content fork created by History2007 and a now abandoned account called Ambrosius007. The discussion to change the title to Catholic views on Mary is on the Mary (mother of Jesus) talk page.  There is no consensus to do anything at this time and I am going to rewrite the article Catholic views on Mary so that there is new content with neutral POV.  Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) can easily be merged into it, as that article is only about one topic, veneration, and it is all POV.  There are many more aspects of Mary in the Catholic faith that have not been addressed, and Catholic views on Mary will fit in nicely with other faith based articles on Mary such as Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Chhe said it very well Malke2010, namely that your strategy has "the effect of evading the consensus established at Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus). This is not the way to do things. And it should not be tolerated." I think Chhe said it very well. And it would be advisable to pay respect to WP:Point, the issue of trying to "make a point" having been addressed by both Marauder and Mike Nutley in the comments here. Please show respect for the views expressed by the several other users here. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is tagged for rescue and that process should be allowed to proceed.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will wait for other users to comment, given that we may go around in circles on the tag issue - since you added the tag yourself. I said what I had to say. History2007 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article is the result of a compromise solution that began as a merger proposal. The discussion was to merge the POV content fork Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into Mary (mother of Jesus).  Editors on the Mary page didn't want BVM RC, which is overlong as it lifts material from 14 different articles on Mary.  A compromise solution was offered that the BMV RC be renamed.  Suggestions favored this article title.  I created the article with the idea that the rename would move forward, and therefore only put in bits of other articles to keep it open.  However, this article was then precipitously nominated for deletion.  Even if BMV RC is not renamed, this title is relevant on Wikipedia as there are no articles about how Catholic views on Mary have changed through the ages and especially the post Vatican II Catholic views on Mary.  The article simply needs work in that direction, which I've already started on.  The article is on an important Catholic topic and should not be deleted, especially as it's just begun and needs a chance to be worked into a full article.  I've seen articles begun with just one sentence.  There's no need for this deletion.  Malke 2010 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, note all the copied material has been removed and replaced with new, original content with appropriate sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * TL;DR I do not see a delete discussion here. I see a wide-ranging bickering over 1) what the article(s) should be titled, 2) where and 3) how RC-specific belief should be expressed. This should really not be at AfD, as far as I can tell. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with you, Jclemens. I've just changed the content of the article so any question of it being a content fork is now moot.  The AfD should be closed to keep.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason this is a delete discussion and not a rename discussion is because this article was created in one night by copying 3 other articles instead of working within consensus to rename an existing in place already existing article. That is why this is a delete discussion. Once this article is deleted the rename discussion can resume. Compare this article to the existing Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page and you will understand. Marauder40 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - forking the content from the other articles made this too complicated. Work with what we have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the content is no longer a fork. I've just changed the content and direction of the article.  There is no need to delete it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 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". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Although I'm aware of the other wiki articles covering similar thoughts I would like to see editors to give this new article a chance by improving it, no matter which way they "voted". If in two to four weeks maximum there is no sign of improvement that warrants this article it can be AFD'd again with a clear consensus for or against it (I'll bet). The current article is far from the initial one but needs plenty of work of course as it is not much more than a stub right now but working on it might make the difference. I've compared the English and German wiki-articles regarding this and came to the conclusion that while the German one's are more narrow and have therefore less articles which cover Maria and there-like, we on the other hand have plenty of articles about that topic that might confuse more than serve our readers who are not familiar with it.TMCk (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: 10/19/2010 The content of Catholic views on Mary has been changed and is no longer using material from other articles. It is all new and original.  In addition, 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".  The article is not eligible for deletion.  The new discussion begins further down, at the "relist" mark.  (Please do not move these comments.  They are placed here to alert editors to the change in status of the article.  These comments are intended to be here.)Malke 2010 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SK 2.4 is intended for content disputes where the article has been in place for awhile and someone nominates it. It is not for newly created content forks. New comment sections are supposed to be placed in date order. AfD guidelines specifically talks about moving comments around and leaving things in order for following the flow of the conversations. Placing your comments first gives the impression that you think your comments are more important then those that came before you.  What would stop every new editor from placing their comments at the top. If you have new comments you either need to add them to one of your four existing sections (vote and other comment sections) or add them to the end.  By the way according to AfD guidelines you are supposed to indicate in your votes/comments that you are the author of the article for full disclosure. Marauder40 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was nominated for AfD by an editor, now blocked for disruption on another page, who didn't even participate in the discussions, and simply wanted to end a content dispute by deletion.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is happening in other places doesn't matter on this page as you like to bring up in regards to yourself. He is not required to particpate in the discussion.  Again you attribute things to other editors, address the issue not the editors.Marauder40 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Comments moved down to keep clear the flow of conversation here.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Whoa this is weird doing this again, but more to the point, have to also mention WP:SK 2.4 due to it's relevence to the current situation. Also the fact that this page is still undergoing rapid editorial changes means that the dispute cannot be completed, not untill 'all the cards are laid'; in other words, untill this article has settled down and it is clear how it will look, you cannot argue that it needs to be deleted as it is still developing and potentially could gain much more information and expansions. I must also note that even when this article has been finished, merging might be a better resolution to come to as it means that all important information to the subject is kept for the public to view. -- ' The Ninja  lemming '  22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - My last comment might be a bit late, but make of it what you will, I have shown my support.  ' The Ninja  lemming '  22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, frankly on the basis that this is the ideal title (give or take the word “Roman”) for an article about a clearly noteworthy subject. If this article does not accurately describe how the Roman Catholic church feels about Mary, please revise it until it does. ―cobaltcigs 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Rescue Ok, I will fix/revise it, as you suggested, but please be sure to send a generous wire transfer. History2007 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Referring to my "keep for now vote" above I suggest closing this as a "no consensus" for now and let's watch this article's development for some time. There is no BLP or other issue that would call for an immediate deletion. So again, let's see what we can make out of it and not who started it and how it came to this article. That's irrelevant and the title itself should be kept anyways and preferable not as a redirect.TMCk (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Baseless comment (inc. responses) removed for privacy reasons since editor was aware of this but chose not to respond while being online and editing today. Also gave the editor a notice at their talkpage .TMCk (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep—I am somewhat new to this discussion, but glancing at how many articles deal with this topic, some presenting views from different religious traditions and others seemingly redundant, this work in progress should be kept until such a time as the content settles in the other articles, at which point a merge (or replacement) and redirect would seem appropriate. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments removed. Please see above and editsumary.TMCk (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete the current article is essentially a POV fork. Since the articles about Mary are generally primarily about the Catholic view, this one is not appropriate. There is no additional material here. It would be better to devote the effort to expanding the other articles, as there is an immense amount of possible sources.  DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a content fork. I deleted all material from other articles.  This article will be about the progressive and conservative views of Catholics.  There are no Wikipedia articles that address that.  All the Mariology articles are redundant articles about veneration and art and consecration, etc.  This article will not have any of that. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he’s saying that while the status quo reflects systemic bias, we should embrace it and continue presenting the content-dominant view without appropriate disclaimer. Myself I’m quite looking forward to Atheist views of Mary, and only wish I had been the first to act. ―cobaltcigs 05:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. But there won't be any of the duplication here that is found in all the Mariology articles that have been forked into Catholic Mariology, Marilogy in Catholicism, etc., and other such content forks.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Roman Catholic Mariology, and Catholic views on Mary into one article. The main issue seems to be that a number of editors haven't managed to work together productively and are now writing content forks of essentially the same notable topic. Instead of deleting just one of these, a community discussion process should examine how to reconcile them.  Sandstein   07:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Catholic views on Mary was meant to become the main title with the POV content fork, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) merged into it. That was the discussion and would have proceeded but for this AfD.  However, I think at this point, with all the disruption this AfD has caused, nobody wants that anymore either.  Catholic views on Mary will now be a comparison of the modern views on Mary, something none of the articles currently addresse.  There's no point in more Blessed Virgin Mary stuff on Wikipedia.  All of the Mariology articles would best be merged and edited down to the salient points, etc.  I'd prefer if Catholic views on Mary could be kept as it will now become the conservative and progressive views of Mary which is a very important topic in Catholicism and has not been addressed on Wikipedia.  As for the issue with the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), that is now a separate issue the regular editors there need to address.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:51, 24 October 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.