Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methods of praying 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 no consensus. The argument to keep because it's integrated into a template doesn't make much sense, but other than that, there's reasonable arguments for both keeping and merging/redirecting. Nobody wants to delete this outright, which is the only action that would require admin rights, so the discussion about whether to keep or merge can continue on the article talk space. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Methods of praying the rosary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTHOWTO. An author hsa described five methods; either this a notable fact, and we should briefly describe his methods (i.e. in-universe information), and at length describe the background, reception, difference with other methods, where this is used, ... Or this is not a notable fact and has received no significant attention in reliable, independent sources, and we shouldn't have an article on it. But as it stands now is this not an acceptable enwiki article. Fram (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This "Methods" article is integrated into the template (Template:Rosary). I do agree the article can be expanded with more content, not deleted. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, what? We should keep this article because it is integrated in a template? That's definitely not a good reason to keep an article. Removing it from the template is no problem and won't make the template any worse (on the contrary, I would say). Fram (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to God Alone, the book in which Montford provides these methods. The target article is barely larger than a stub and can easily accommodate the material here.  Or to put it slightly differently, there was never any need to separate this material from the article on God Alone.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify. That this is a valid article heading can be seen from e.g. Anne Winston-Allen, Stories of the Rose: The Making of the Rosary in the Middle Ages (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997), which explains how some authors had eight methods, some two, etc.; or Lorenzo F. Candelaria, The Rosary Cantoral: Ritual and Social Design (University of Rochester Press, 2008), which compares the methods recommended by Alanus de Rupe to those of Jacob Sprenger. The article as it stands gives undue weight to a single author, and most of the content (as NewYorkActuary says) would be better in the article on that author's writings. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Agree with Andreas Philopater. The detailed discussion of Montfort's methods should be merged to an article on Montfort as per NewYorkActuary; this article should be reduced to a concise summary of Montfort's methods, and then expanded with information on methods from other sources, such as the two sources that Andreas Philopater raises. SJK (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Keep, Merge or Redirect?
 * Redirect to Rosary, this is WP:UNDUE coverage of an 18th-century writer who doesn't appear to be an authority on this topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * REdirect -- I am not sure if there is material to merge or not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Could have some more sources, though the ones there seem RS. Rosary Beads have been around for a thousand years, and there are various methods of praying with them, referenced in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The only things referenced in the article are some methods described or invented by an 18th century French priest, not a general discussion of what the title suggests, "methods of ...". Reading the article does not give any idea that rosary beads are nearly omnipresent in Roman catholic history of the 2nd millennium and that many methods of praying with them exist and have existed for centuries. It's like writing an article on "war" and only discussing the Thirty Years' War: yes, it is a war, but it is not an article on "war", but on one specfic example. And in the case of the "Methods", it is not even a notable one. Fram (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2017 (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.