Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Mariology


 * 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   Merge. Noone supports Malke 2010's proposal to delete. 2 editors (Twilightchill and DGG) support a merge and History2007's specific proposal is supported by 8 other editors (Shirt58, Johnbod, Dylan Flaherty, Marauder40, Chhe, Willthacheerleader18, Sandstein and John Carter). The consensus to carry out History2007's proposal is strong. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Mariology

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

POV content fork. Material already sufficiently covered in the following articles:
 * Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church and
 * Mariology and
 * History of Roman Catholic Mariology. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Malke 2010's reasoning; also redundant in content. See Marian_devotions--Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actualy, the article you refer to was also scheduled for an appearance on death row, along with this one, as in Articles for deletion/Marian devotions. Devotions are just a portion of Mariology. History2007 (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. I have stricken my !vote.  I now completely agree with  History2007's proposal.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article actually duplicates Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. Twilight chill  t   20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. Twilight chill  t   21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge This is clearly a notable topic, and has referenced text that is not available elsewhere n Wikipedia. But this article needs less overlap with others, and more material on doctrines. A few weeks ago, I suggested that this article be merged with Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church and created a Merged prototype in this link on October 25, 2010. Not enough people responded to that merge proposal, but I do think a "consolidation" of some of these Mariology articles is a good idea, but not outright deletion, given that the topic is clearly notable and has book after book written on it. Now, this is probably a good place to discuss the general consolidation plan that I had attempted to start via the merge proposal for this article made on October 25. 2010. If you read through that "Merged prototype" you will see that the redundancies and overlaps with other articles had been avoided, and it stands by itself pretty well. And user:Chhe who commented on the merger was in favor of that prototype. But I think now that other people will comment on here it makes sense to merge 3 articles:


 * Roman Catholic Mariology: The top level article that addresses a clearly notable topic, including doctrines, perspectives, art, papal teachings, devotions, etc. "at a top level".


 * Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church: This article, as its name suggests simply discusses dogmas and doctrines. It is "part of Mariology" and should really be merged in here.


 * Catholic views on Mary: This article just discusses Marian views and perspectives. I wrote 90% of the content for this article, as a result of a rescue flag placed on top of it. It makes sense to merge it into here, as part of this consolidation. It will simply not make sense to have a peripheral article on "Catholic Marian views" while a deletion is discussed on the top, notable topic of Mariology.


 * I think it will make sense to merge these 3 articles, and that will create an article whose length will then be just manageable and will avoid duplication with other articles. I will build a prototype of that 3 way merged article in a few days. This is a notable topic, and needs to be merged with the other articles it subsumes, not deleted outright.History2007 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per History. This is a very pointy nom, one of a large series, but there are too many articles in this area. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with your comments on Articles_for_deletion/Marian_art_in_the_Catholic_Church regarding WP:POINT and the "mass nominations" (there are others) performed in the space of a few hours, shortly following other incidents. History2007 (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per History, but without commenting on motivations. Dylan   Flaherty  21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per History. Agree with merging the 3 articles he listed in his comments.Marauder40 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with your statement Marauder on the merge proposal on Talk:Mariology of the popes, that "the extreme number of nominations" along with those mass merge proposals are yet another case of WP:POINT. In fact on Articles for deletion/Marian devotions user:Colonel Warden stated that it was one of the cases of nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. We have also seen Articles for deletion/Marian art in the Catholic Church etc. and the situation is such that a relatively new Wikipedia editor just asked: Can we block Malke from editing wikipedia.. they're just destroying it. What can I say? History2007 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * merge but to History of Roman Catholic Mariology, not to Mariology of the popes. Looking a tthe articles, it would seem a more appropriate merge, ad both of these are general articles, while the one on the popes, even when expanded with the material on the pages for the separate popes, is more specific, rather than a continuous narrative.    DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment to Admins: Please note that Catholic views on the Virgin Mary is a new article I started that has recently survived a nearly intractable AfD. As it stands now it has nearly identical content to other Marian articles because History2007 put it there and won't allow it's removal or modification.  See the latest revert here:  .  Therefore, any decision to merge articles, rather than a deletion, should not include Catholic views on the Virgin Mary as it is meant to offer new content that includes differing Catholic views on Mary that are nowhere in any Marian article on Wikipedia.  And as the Mariology articles are nearly identical in their content, pictures, etc., this is the one chance for a different article.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "meant to offer new content that includes differing Catholic views on Mary that are nowhere in any Marian article on Wikipedia." Interesting comment considering you keep complaining about POV forks and things like that in the other Marian articles. Why not add the content to the other already existing Marian articles? Either the page is a listing of different Catholic views of the Virgin Mary or it isn't, but since the page is in article space and not userspace consensus determines what it is (or whether it should be merged,) not ownership. Marauder40 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. This one seems like a no-brainer. I support the four articles recommended by History2007 being merged. They all deal with the same subject matter. This includes the recently renamed article Catholic views on the Virgin Mary.Chhe (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Seven days have now passed since the start of this Afd. There is clear consensus among the editors (excluding the nominator) that there is to be no deletion and that a merger is to be performed among the following articles:


 * Roman Catholic Mariology
 * Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church
 * Catholic views on the Virgin Mary


 * with portions moving to History of Roman Catholic Mariology as indicated in the merge document above. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is no consensus over which articles are to be merged. However, I agree with TwilightChill in that Roman Catholic Mariology duplicates Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and suggest it be merged there.  History of Roman Catholic Mariology can be a speedy delete as it is also another duplication.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The editors above have expressed their opinions, and Shirt58, Johnbod, Dylan Flaherty, Marauder, and Chhe supported my proposal which includes the 3 way merger. So 6 out of the 8 editors who voted (myself included) support my proposal. What we have is: 8 votes for merge, zero votes for delete and 6 votes out of 8 supported my proposal for a 3 way merger. Isn't that clear? History2007 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, one vote for delete. Mine.  The question here is not "votes."  It's the redundancy that needs to go, no matter how many "votes."  It should be deleted.  True, it's an important topic but it's already covered in Mariology.  If it is to be merged, then look at Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).  There's nothing there that can't be found in a dozen other articles including Roman Catholic Mariology.  The article on Mariology is sufficient as it's really almost all about Catholic beliefs anyway.  Either delete Roman Catholic Mariology or merge it there.  Catholic views on the Virgin Mary isn't going to have more of the same.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think as nominator you cannot vote, and it makes no difference to the numbers mentioned above: 8 votes for merge, zero votes for delete and 6 votes out of the 8 support my 3 way merger proposal. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that the nominator is for deletion. And the votes don't have to be given that much weight if the evidence that this is redundant and a waste of server space is there.  Duplication is a valid and important reason in itself for deletion.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will let the Wikipedia editors at large comment on that. I have expressed the facts as I see them. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per History. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge most of the several articles about Mary in the Roman Catholic Church, many of which seem to be POV forks of each other. History2007's proposal looks like a good start.  Sandstein   07:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not have a situation where the only articles on Mary are the ones created and edited by History2007. There's no reason to merge Catholic views on the Virgin Mary.  It's a new article and it would be best if it's allowed to develop.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this discussion about the article content, or about the ongoing edit disputes between Malke2010 and History 2007? Please focus on article content and respect consensus. There is clear 8/10 consensus now for a 3 way merger. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There can be no more clear example of History2007 ownership issues than that he's just reverted the administrator who closed this AfD. Not surprising as he won't allow editing on the articles he owns and he won't allow new articles on Mary unless he can control the content.  A good example of this is the |  recent warning he put on my talk page because I added content to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) which he immediately deleted.  Then, rather than use the talk page for a discussion, he used it for another round of | incivility.  And now reverting an administrator who doesn't agree with him.  Good luck to anybody who doesn't do as he commands.  Malke 2010 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I did not revert anyone. And making this a case of Malke2010 vs History2007 ongoing edit disputes does not change the consensus for the Afd. Please focus on content and respect consensus. Prior issues that you call incivil were AGF-ed as good humor by your mentor, as you well know. Please ask him to remind you and clarify that if needed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when the mentorship would be brought up. Consensus does not have to weigh entirely here.  Catholic views on the Virgin Mary does not have to be merged/deleted.  The comments are largely from the same editors who always seem to arrive to back you up, especially the two who never edit Catholic articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, please focus on content and consensus. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's only a concern for you when it goes your way, which it does when the usual editors show up. Administrators are still free to recognize that this is a POV content fork and that there is nothing stopping him/her from deleting it, even with this so-called "consensus." Malke 2010 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that is not my understanding. Please follow WP:CALM and let the matter calm down. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - per History. I acknowledge that the subject of the BVM in the RCC is a very significant one, and that there is certainly sufficient material for there to exist more than one article on the subject. However, there does seem to be an issue of the content being duplicated, for better or worse. I think it would make sense to first work on the other extant articles, and then, when and if the article becomes excessively long, to create further subtopical articles, but that would best be done by consensus of the majority of the involved editors rather than by the action of one individual editor, not that I fault anyone for BOLDly addressing what they might see as a problem. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In fact, I started on the path to consolidation on October 25, 2010 by starting a merge suggestion, as stated above. However, we need to close this Afd now based on the clear consensus of 9 votes out of 11 that recommend the 3 way merge proposal, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roman Catholic Mariology is a POV content fork and should be deleted per WP:POVFORK. The wider community consensus WP:CONLIMITED is with the policy and guidelines that address POV content forks and it is not with the limited consensus of editors here.  POV content forks are supposed to be deleted.  Administrators should not ignore the wider community consensus which backs the policies and guidelines.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have stated that opinion several times now on this page, starting with your nomination of the article for deletion, and we can all read those. Stating this a few more times will not make it any more clear. Please respect the views of the other editors on this page. There is no consensus for deletion, but there is clear (i.e. 9 votes out of 11) consensus for a "3 way merge". Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, your count is votes for the merge deletion of this one article Roman Catholic Mariology. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 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.