Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 122: Line 122:
::Give one reason why this article is not a [[WP:CFORK|blatant content fork]]. Focus on that one issue. That is what this AfD is about.[[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::Give one reason why this article is not a [[WP:CFORK|blatant content fork]]. Focus on that one issue. That is what this AfD is about.[[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think I have to answer to you. As far as I know you aren't the admin that is dealing with this article. I am currently only have to justify why this is a SK#2.4 issue in my normal comments. If this delete page isn't determined to be SK then maybe I will go into more details. Honestly the sections like this to the admins are usually counterproductive and unneeded. They are usually smart enough to figure out things on their own without input from the editors beyond their normal comments. You seem to be helping out on the SK#2.4 justifications all by yourself.[[User:Marauder40|Marauder40]] ([[User talk:Marauder40|talk]]) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think I have to answer to you. As far as I know you aren't the admin that is dealing with this article. I am currently only have to justify why this is a SK#2.4 issue in my normal comments. If this delete page isn't determined to be SK then maybe I will go into more details. Honestly the sections like this to the admins are usually counterproductive and unneeded. They are usually smart enough to figure out things on their own without input from the editors beyond their normal comments. You seem to be helping out on the SK#2.4 justifications all by yourself.[[User:Marauder40|Marauder40]] ([[User talk:Marauder40|talk]]) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::::That's called [[Wag the Dog|wagging the dog]]. History2007 and his "supporters" do that all the time on every AfD. Same argument, different AfD. [[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:51, 1 December 2010

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork. Catholic views on Mary are already covered sufficiently in Mary (mother of Jesus) and Roman Catholic Mariology

and the multiple "Our Lady of" articles such as Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima. Entire article is a duplication. Also, Blessed Virgin Mary has already been merged into Mary (mother of Jesus) which itself is almost entirely the Catholic view of Mary. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Malke: If you think some articles need to be merged, you need to use WP:MERGE and place merge flags, as you have done in several recent cases. An Afd is not to be used as a "surrogate for WP:MERGE". This Afd is a follow on to recnt mass Afd tags and is clearly the result of an ongoing edit dispute, as discussed below. Also, there is no need to make a long line by line list to attract attention, you can just list the articles above on 2 lines. We can all still read them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Makle2010: have you read all these articles? The "Our Lady"s are about Marian apparitions with prophesies and messages given by Mary.. viewed in different places by differnt people, not about the biblical Mary. Rosary and devotions, etc, are absolutely worthy of being their own article.. as are, I believe, ALL these articles. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Rationale and facts are as follows:
  • There is no doubt that the nominator, user:Malke2010, has been involved in an ongoing, long term editing dispute on this page. The continuing series of debates on the talk page attest to the existence of these editing disputes involving the nominator.
  • This is the 7th Afd tag placed by the nominator in the past 10 days on articles related to this topic. The previous mass deletion Afd tags are listed here. This page was also the subject of a September 28, 2010 merge proposal by this nominator. The merge proposal was rejected. There were also a large number of related Afds by this nominator today, after this Afd was posted and discussed, listed below on this page. There are too many Afds by this nominator to produce an easy count here, since they keep re-appearing.
This is a "really clear cut case" of an Afd nominator having an ongoing, long term editing dispute on the nominated page and therefore based on WP:SK #2.4 a speedy conclusion is the appropriate, policy-based course of action. History2007 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about removing the endless duplication of articles about Mary. You want it to appear as an edit problem. That's called "wagging the dog." Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a merge request and it was rejected. Anyway, I agree with the WP:POINT issue as well. Two WP:POINT warnings have been issued to this nominator in the past 2 months, and multiple editors have stated that there have been WP:POINT breaches in other cases. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe it's time to decide which "Virgin Mary" article's to keep and merge the rest into one or two of them. It's starting to get silly regarding the "fights" going on (and I'm sure Mary wouldn't approve of it, no matter "which one"); And furthermore I think it's time to decide on a main "Virgin Mary" article which would/should carry most of what can be said about her and split (only) parts that would be extending it beyond reasonable prose to read.TMCk (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That may or may not be a separate discussion, but using repeated WP:POINT Afds to make that point is not the way to do it. This Afd is a clear case of WP:SK and WP:POINT in which an Afd is made by an editor (well known to you) with a long history of editing disputes on the nominated page. A clear case of an Afd on a page with previous edit disputes. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this would be a (in part) separate discussion and my comment is meant to encourage one instead of going back and fore-wards with those AFD's that have some merit and other discussions elsewhere to come to a final agreement (which way to go) in a collaborative sense. Your edit dispute between you and Malke is not of any importance in that matter as it doesn't serve WP at all if I may say so and determine if the AFD is "pointy" or not isn't helping either. I placed a comment only expressing my thoughts without giving my "vote" keeping or deleting this particular article for the reason I laid out above.TMCk (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a discussion about which Marian pages should be merged and which shouldn't should take place but I disagree that they should happen on a AfD. I think it just confuses the issue. The previous merge request for merging this page and the Mary (mother of Jesus) page came to a consensus that a page was needed to represent the Catholic viewpoint since it is so different from the mainstream non-Catholic viewpoint. A discussion on what to call that article was subverted by numerous merge requests and AfDs that have taken time away from actual editing. IMHO the contents of this article is the best starting point for the Catholic perspective of Mary (whatever the article is called.) Many of the other articles are there for keeping this article a manageable size. Can some of them disappear? Probably. Like I am not real sure why we have a History of Roman Catholic Mariology‎ and a Roman Catholic Mariology‎ page, but I think a discussion listing every Catholic marian article and deciding which should be merged and which shouldn't needs to take place somewhere else. Marauder40 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with you that the catholic view of Mary differs from other views and might deserve it's own article, sub-article of a still to determine main article to make it more clear and catching on my post above. And yes, a merger discussion should take place somewhere else than on this AFD and if that would seriously happen I don't think there would be more AFD's about article's about Mary as those discussions could determine which article's should be kept, rewritten or deleted. Unless such basic discussion is taking place I see no end and no reason nominating some of those pages for deletion. Somehow this is the wrong venue to discuss this but till there is another more reasonable venue to cut out the roots of the problem it will (my guess) end up again and again at AFD.TMCk (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TMC, Your statement that "this is the wrong venue to discuss this" is totally correct. An Afd is not the way to do this. But regarding "I see no end and no reason nominating some of those pages for deletion", that will naturally end when Afd tags have been placed on them all and rejected, and much time has been wasted, or when some administrator will rightly apply WP:POINT to end the process. This Afd is clearly subject to WP:POINT, as you seem to know. And since we talked about Cortisol below, I just noticed that its article needs help. Should I type here, or go fix that? And let us all watch out for Afd-induced Cortisol. That may become a new medical phenomenon now. History2007 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're being a bit pointy yourself (re. Cortisol article). Anyhow, I meant to say "I see no end and no reason to not nominating some of those pages for deletion." but I see you understood me anyways. Now, any venue in mind to open a basic discussion? Is there a project page where this could be handled? Don't count on me arguing there but I think it would be helpful to the project having a link here to such page no matter how the AFD turns out.TMCk (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though your comments about your "battle" with History2007 have no bearing on the content of the page, could you please point out the ownership issues with the page? Please give one example in the last three months of someone other then you being reverted on the page (not including vandalism edits.) Marauder40 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that note Marauder, I am having serious doubts if I will receive a Christmas card this year from some of the editors on this page.... Time will tell... History2007 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Marauder probably will send you one and so will I if you give me an address (a PO BOX will do) since I don't send virtual cards. Mary X-mas, TMCk (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know TMC, that is a much better tone now than all this Cortisol-raising type of discussion. By the way, Marauder did not send me one last year.... All others who will send, please confirm herein. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'll send you one if I get some address which is not virtual (yet non-disclosing); And maybe Marauder will send you one too this year? As for what you perceive as a "cortisol-raising-discussion", that might be how you experience the "tone" but is not necessarily the case for others and neither has it to be for you.TMCk (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries my friend. You made a nice gesture to try to send, and that is good enough. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well then, thanks and have a good one. I guess I call it a night. But still, please think about my comment further above.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with TMCk and Malke2010 that several Marian articles should be merged (and this one should be kept in order for that to happen). Several merges have begun recently, as most who have commented here are aware. This AfD nom with the intent of merging is, I think, a bit out of place. I propose that a larger-scale merge effort be undertaken by interested editors. A common template should be dropped onto the articles in question, referring to a new "talk" page (both could even be in my userspace) that facilitates discussion of eliminating the redundant and very hard to navigate articles (as well as identifying other articles applicable to the merge). Also, this process of consolidation seems to lead to more than one final article, so sorting out where the final content will come from and which titles best represent the content is another discussion that should take place on neutral/central ground (with respect to the articles involved). –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 00:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually Paul, I started on the path to consolidation with a merge proposal on October 25, 2010, to begin to systematically merge some articles. However, the current nominator opposed that, and we were then side-tracked by mass Afds that I found quite distracting and a waste of effort. I do think there is need for some systematic consolidation, but this Afd is not the way to do it. Wikipedia policy needs to be respected and WP:Merge is the proper protocol, not this. This needs to be the subject of a speedy conclusion, as indicated above. History2007 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into I think we're all agreed that some of these articles should be merged together, but I don't think there's any consensus for deleting this one as part of the merging. Dylan Flaherty 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Dylan that as part of the consolidation, this article will eventually have to grow, not be deleted. How and what will make this grow is a discussion per WP:Merge and not this type of Afd for a page on which the nominator has had ongoing editing disputes. It just does not look right. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There we go again: A number of unjustified Afds are appearing all over the place now. In my view these Afds by this nominator are clearly disruptive to a constructive discussion about consolidation. The growing list of Afds by this nominator is as follows:
These are in addition to this list of concluded and rejected Afds by this nominator in the past 10 days. I think something needs to be done to stop WP:disruptive editing here. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sure everyone has noticed by now that History2007 and his "supporters" all focus on the nominator and not the merits of keeping the article. Obviously, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a content fork. Not a single "supporter" has shown one policy reason why the article should be kept, nor have they proven that the article is not a content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malke I believe you have been warned by numerous people including Moonriddengirl before about lumping together "supporter"s of people as if they do not have a thought of their own. Everyone on here has their own opinions, just because those opinions are different from yours doesn't mean they are wrong. Please respect the fact that everyone has an opinion. Numerous reasons have been given for the keep, just because you don't agree doesn't make them valid. I personally think this entire comment needs retracted. Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you prove my point. Not a single word is offered above for why this article should be kept. Not one reason why this article isn't a blatant content fork. Just more of the same focus put on the nominator, including false accusations, and not on the merits of the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious why people are addressing your actions. Your actions do not reflect someone that is working within consensus to develop the WP project and the Catholicism sections within the project within consensus. Mass delete requests do not help, they only inflame. There are many better ways for dealing with this situation. I honestly thing admin intervention may be needed soon. At the least the intervention should prohibit you from starting any new Merge/Delete requests. This is a clear case of point. I personally am suprised that speedy keep hasn't already been invoked on this page for content dispute reasons.Marauder40 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Supporters" are not addressing the rationale for either deleting or keeping the article. Focus on the article for AfD and not the nominator. See WP:AGF. Also, see WP:AFD. It specifically states your disputes should not be argued here.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention "Supporters" for "Keep." Please show 1 reason why this article is not a duplication of all those listed above. Show 1 reason Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is not a content fork: Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think this is entirely inappropriate, this is like saying why does the United States article exist, when we have the U.S. state article, the Federal government of the United States, United States Constitution article, and the List of National Parks of the United States article. You obviously need a starting point for the Catholic understanding of Mary and this is it. Just like someone would go to the US page and branch out from there. They would do the same for the Mary page. As has been addressed numerous times on this page, some consolidation of Marian pages is appropriate. Your methods are not working within consensus.Marauder40 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are demonstrating again that you have no policy to show, nothing to prove by the article itself, not one thing to point to that shows this article is not a content fork. Just proves my point. This sounds like the flea argument that the kid in school writes when he can't answer the question about the dog. So he writes about the fleas on the dog. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Malke you obviously don't understand the idea of portals. Why do we have a Catholic Church page, a Criticism of the Catholic Church, a History of the Catholic Church and a List of popes? Why aren't they all part of the Catholic Church page? Because the information in one place is to much and things need to be split out. Same thing goes with Marian articles. There is two much information to fit within the size constraints of an article. Also some of the things you list are only related topics and entirely different subjects. Just because the Rosary is Marian, doesn't mean the entire topic belongs on the main Catholic Mary page. It honestly seems like you have a myopic view of this topic. Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|Perfect example of why SK 2.4 needs to be invoked.Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give one reason why this article is not a blatant content fork. Focus on that one issue. That is what this AfD is about.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have to answer to you. As far as I know you aren't the admin that is dealing with this article. I am currently only have to justify why this is a SK#2.4 issue in my normal comments. If this delete page isn't determined to be SK then maybe I will go into more details. Honestly the sections like this to the admins are usually counterproductive and unneeded. They are usually smart enough to figure out things on their own without input from the editors beyond their normal comments. You seem to be helping out on the SK#2.4 justifications all by yourself.Marauder40 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's called wagging the dog. History2007 and his "supporters" do that all the time on every AfD. Same argument, different AfD. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic)&oldid=399949031"