Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosary of the Unborn


 * 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 Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosary of the Unborn

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This has been speedy deleted three times now. This creation was a contested prod. I'm going to remain neutral as to this AfD. I'm not convinced this prayer or chain of beads or whatever is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I just think it needs discussion. eaolson (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There is an actual product, the Rosary of the Unborn (TM) sold at . I'm not sure if this article is supposed to be referring to that product or not.
 * 2) It appears to be common to say a prayer for the "unborn". Ghits at . I'm not sure if it's a specific prayer or if it's just a common practice to pray to end abortion or what. The number of GHits is rather small, suggesting this isn't notable.

*DeleteThere does not seem to be enough information to merge with Rosary, it does not appear to be advertising per sources, but it seems to be very minor & probably not worthy of mention, but that isn't my decision. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed the article, provided sourcing and made into what I think, is a workable stub - Keep. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. not notable enough for its own article, perhaps worth a passing mention in Rosary if a reference can be found - Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -Andrew c [talk] 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I still do not believe the "workable stub" is appropriate. There are two sources: a self-published webpage which seems like a glorified product promotion. I'm not convinced that one brief mention in a book about abortion in Spain establishes notability. Besides, it seems to me that many google hits are just referencing not a phrase "Rosary of the Unborn" but describing something else in lowercase letters "rosary of the unborn..." This would be similar to having article on Rosary of the Blessed Virgin and Rosary for the Church in need and Rosary for the family. These are all common things that a rosary can be prayed for, but that does not mean we need an article on each one. This specific topic is a bit confusing because we need to be careful not to mix a product/promotional website with a phrase that isn't referring to that website. Regardless, both usages are not notable. Perhaps a section in the main rosary article could work.-Andrew c [talk] 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into an appropriate article. This article is not about a product, even if there is a product with the same name. It's about a religious practice. Fg2 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced substub. May be worth a brief mention in Rosary. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I had added three sources when removing the deletion proposal. Then the user who had initially proposed deletion removed the sources and proposed deletion a second time. I have added the sources again, together with an appropriate stub template. Fg2 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I just can't find a non-trivial reference other than the commercial site (and there, it's unclear whether they are referring to their particular product or the religious practice). Cancel this vote if one gets added, I believe it may be notable but just don't see the evidence. Rigadoun (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: the search term "Rosary for the Unborn" gives twice as many hits on google as the current name does. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding: also google news, where the three stories are all specifically about this devotion. And 1 hit on google scholar books that I've just added as a source to the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per Andrew c above, the book reference you added just seems to be talking about the rosary as a general prayer said for a reason, not a particular and specific thing. People say rosaries for all sorts of reasons, but each one doesn't need an article. eaolson (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

— 76.98.248.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete This article seems to be just a backdoor into the Rosary article for a commercial website that sells rosaries. The website makes unfounded claims about the spiritual power of the rosary it sells. The website had been directly linked from the Rosary article at least four times and subsequently reverted. Roesser (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is not meant to advertise, only explain a popular devotion. I started the page and I am in no way associated with the company. It is meant to explain a devotion growing in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConceptLife (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)  — ConceptLife (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This article is describing a practice benficial to most Catholics. Leave it alone, there are many pages describing products on Wikipedia, why do you care about deleting this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.248.227 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently important in "pro-life" settings, and frequently mentioned in Catholic publications.DGG (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly clear, to what Catholic publications are you referring? And are you talking about the product "Rosary of the Unborn" or about a rosary prayer said for the unborn. If it is the latter, would you support articles for the Rosary for the family, Rosary for the dead, Rosary for the Church etc? -Andrew c [talk] 15:54, 5 February 2008 (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.