Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the rosary


 * 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 Withdrawn by nominator.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?   17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

History of the rosary

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Redundant content fork Duplicates content from
 * Rosary
 * Rosary based prayers
 * Rosary devotions and spirituality Malke 2010 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4, as being discussed on Articles for deletion/Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). This article's Afd is part of a larger, "mass Afd issue" being discussed at length here. Please see that page so the same discussion does not get repeated on multiple pages. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is no such "mass AfD issue" being discussed on the AfD for Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).  Everyone should focus only on the merits of either deleting or keeping this article.  Note also the usual "supporters" on both articles.  Thanks.  Malke 2010 (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Malke 2010 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4. Content dispute and WP:POINT best worked out elsewhere. Marauder40 (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Content dispute is best worked out somewhere else. Stop putting tags on half of wikipedia's Catholic articles, Malke. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On a substantive note, these are major concepts in the RC Church. Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: all the content is reproduced in the above three articles. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The statement that "all the content is reproduced in the above three articles" is not correct. There is no mention of the historical facts such as St. Eligius, or Lady Godiva referring to it in her will, St. Aibert, who died in 1140, recited 150 rosaries, Saint Rosalia in 1160, etc. etc. etc. in the other articles. Please follow WP:BEFORE, read the articles, etc. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The few exceptions can be merged into Rosary. That article needs some pruning anyway, and it can handle additional content.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see the facts That way at all. And in any case, this Afd (among the many others) is a clear case of WP:SK #2.4 and I just commented that your statement was inaccurate. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's a simple solution.  Since all the articles are really duplicates, they could all be merged easily by simply removing the duplicate content and merging what's left. Also, the wider community consensus is with Wikipedia policy which states that redundant content forking is unacceptable.  Malke 2010 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not proposing merging, you requested deletion. It is not a duplicate nor is it as redundant as you claim it to be. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: as has been discussed elsewhere, the best way to handle these multiple content forks is through an RfC merger proposal. As such I withdraw the nomination and have asked an admin for a "speedy keep" close.  Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 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.