Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters (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)
Redundant content fork. Copies exactly content from these articles:
- Papal bulls
- Ineffabilis Deus
- Bis Saeculari
- Munificentissimus Deus
- Papal encyclicals
- Ad Diem Illum
- Deiparae Virginis Mariae
- Ingruentium Malorum
- Fulgens Corona
- Ad Caeli Reginam
- Redemptoris Mater
- Ecclesiastical letter
- Gloriosae Dominae
- Marialis Cultus
- Rosarium Virginis Mariae
- Mariology of the popes
All articles say the exact same thing. This article merely lists all articles above with duplicate content. Content already sufficiently covered in separate articles noted above as well as Mariology of the popes. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4, as being discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). This article's Afd is part of a larger, "mass Afd issue" being discussed at length here. Please see that page so the same discussion does not get repeated on multiple pages. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no such "mass AfD issue" being discussed on the AfD for Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). Everyone should focus only on the merits of either deleting or keeping this article. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4. Content dispute and WP:POINT best worked out elsewhere. Marauder40 (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK, this is getting redundant. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: as has been discussed elsewhere, the best way to handle these multiple content forks is through an RfC merger proposal. As such I withdraw the nomination and have asked an admin for a "speedy keep" close. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.