Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Mary (disambiguation)


 * 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Mary (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Apart from the primary meaing of Mary, mother of Jesus, there is really only one other genuine meaning, the cocktail. This can be dealt with by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep:Dab pages are generally a good idea and this page has not bitten anyone once - I promise. And by the way, don't we all have better things to do (say content development) than these types of peripheral discussion that buy zero for the encyclopedia - see the talk page there. I just wish I did not have to deal with these never ending little discussions and could focus on better content... sigh... History2007 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and use hatnote. Dab pages are not "generally" a good idea; they are only "specifically" a good idea when ambiguity exists and cannot be addressed by simple hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Struck by JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then where will Mary Ever Virgin point to? Will be a mess. Pointing that to the mother of Jesus page will open another theological Pandora's box later and waste some more of my time explaining it. Long live Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It ought to point to Perpetual virginity of Mary, and should do so anyway regardless of this page. The logic of pointing it at this page escapes me.  BTW, I have done a fair bit of content development in my time, as you can see from my edit history, but deleting unnecessary dab pages is a perfectly legitimate part of developing Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In 6 months someone will (perhaps correctly) say that Mary Ever Virgin sometimes refers to the "person" while Perpetual virginity of Mary is a "doctrine", not a person and a person should not point to a doctrine, and we will discuss that again. But I will not bother now. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it refers to the person, it should point to Virgin Mary. If it refers to the doctrine, it should point to Perpetual virginity of Mary. If there's ambiguity between the two and neither is primary, Mary ever virgin should be a dab page and point to both. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hallelujah! You said it: it needs to be a dab page for neither is primary. And it used to be a dab page. Pointing it to the mother of Jesus page will start another round of theological discussion as I said above. It used to be a dab page, and it points to a dab page now. I think it is best left that way. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be a dab page, not point to a (different) dab page. My !vote here remains "Delete" -- whether or not "Mary ever virgin" has a primary topic doesn't change the "Virgin Mary" space. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, the world will not end either way. And none of this discussion will teach anything to a reader. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we move this dab to Mary ever virgin (and rework it so it disambiguates that title) and leave the article ambiguous with the title "Virgin Mary" to be disambiguated by a hatnote from Virgin Mary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It may work. But needs some type of message there to avoid the next suggestion in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As this dab page is the only thing that actually points to "Mary ever virgin" this is not worth making a fuss about. PatGallacher (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 
 * Comment: This seems like an organization dispute, not a deletion discussion per se.  DAB page looks fine to me to handle this subject.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; The Virgin Mary (book), which I've just started, seems like a legitimate target for Virgin Mary (disambiguation). (Incidentally and nothing to do with this debate, I'm surprised we lack an article on the author Giovanni Miegge). Cheers, cab (call) 08:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. And Miegge needs a page, if you don't want to build it, I can do it. Just let me know. History2007 (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as expanded. --- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is becoming WP:Snow. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the best solution. Please don't put a hatnote pointing to a cocktail on the top of the article on Jesus' mother. BigJim707 (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But that issue aside, given that there are two items (one being the book, the other the drink) this issue is now by and large over and should be WP:SNOW-ed. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is agreed that the book or even the author is notable then I withdraw the nomination. PatGallacher (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a book written about him], so I think he is notable, also as here. And a pretty unusual and noted Protestant Italian theologian (go figure), who is mentioned in many other books. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2011 (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.