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. The consensus is clearly inevitable; Giving that, there's no need to continue further--there is no need to make a judgment about POINT at this time in order to close it DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marian art in the Catholic Church (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)

POV Content fork/WP:COAT. See: [1]. It is a near duplication of Roman Catholic Mariology and other similar POV content forks. The coat rack nature of this article is best seen under it's "Appartions" section here: [2]. Also see redundant content here: [3]. And same content here: [4]. (Nota bene: A bonafide article on Catholic art already exists: See Art in Roman Catholicism.) Malke 2010 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I can't see much overlap with Roman Catholic Mariology in fact (he has also put that up for deletion!). I wrote parts of the article, and there are many things about it I don't like, including the title, but the idea that the depiction of Mary in Western art is not a proper subject is ridiculous. A very WP:POINTY nom, one of several, from an editor who had just made something of a fool of him/herself here. There are too many articles in this area, but this is not one of them. Some parts, like the Apparitions section, could be trimmed. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article is nominated for deletion because it is using the Marian art as a coat rack to create yet another non-neutral article on Marian veneration. The 'art' discussions are really about veneration hung on the 'art' rack. And thank you for pointing to the other article where my argument resulted in the new and accurate edit.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having written much of the "art discussions" I can assure you they are not "really about veneration", any more than my other contributions on art history, nor do I see how any fair-minded person could think so. I don't follow your last sentence but never mind. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting revision statistics: [5]. Also suggests WP:OWN.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just suggests only 2 people have been very interested in editing the article. Have you got round to reading the talk page yet? Probably not. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the talk page. Yes, I had seen it. It begins with an editor trying to explain what's wrong with the page and then being told that, while he might be right, he's getting reverted anyway. [6]. The last entry is nearly a year old. The one before that nearly two years old. You don't seem to have gained much ground with your reasonable arguments there, either. As I said, WP:OWN where editors are chased away, and the rack holds up veneration. By contrast, look at the editing stats on the article this is really about art Art in Roman Catholicism where the figures show a very different picture. [7]. But the talk page [8] still shows the same type of comments from the same editor.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm not really following you. You seem to have missed Lima's comment on the Marian page "History2007 has asked me to add to this article." which hardly suggests WP:OWN. You have not raised anything on the talkpage before launching this Afd. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Lima had to seek approval first. And apparently, he's since closed his account after this bit was brought to his attention by an admin:[ [9] [10]. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you Malke, and I can not see any relevance to these sentences with respect to the attempt to "delete this article". In my view this tangential discussion about the talk page history has no relevance to the attempted AFD (which was called without merit below) and is just taking up time that could be put to better use to improve Wikipedia. I see no reason to respond to tangential issues further. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep On the talk page for this article, someone commented:

"First of all, I think the interested reader gets a lot out of this interestivg article as it stands. Thank you for writing it, whoever you are!"

There is no need to delete an article when people come out thanking those who wrote it. I think the point Johnbod had about this nomination being a case of WP:POINT is quite clear. There are many (I have not managed to count how many yet) similar AFD tags placed by User:Malke 2010 often on Marian articles within the past few hours. And WP:POINT claims against user:Malke2010 were made by 3 editors (myself included) on another occasion and a warning was issued. I think as Johnbod said, this is not in any way an article that should have been nominated for deletion in any reasonable sense. And I would like to point out for those do not know his work, that Johnbod is one of the top art experts in Wikipedia. He really knows much more about art and specially Christian art than most other editors around, and a quick look at his article creation record confirms that. So his opinion should be valued. He knows this topic, and I fully agree with the WP:POINT statement. I think it would be fair to issue a 2nd WP:POINT warning to Malke, given the context of this AFD among many others in a space of a few hours. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article is interesting and valuable, without strong overlap. I'm kind of glad it was nominated for deletion because it means it came to my attention. But the nomination itself is without merit. Dylan Flaherty 21:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. This is a separate topic to the more general Art in Roman Catholicism which simply cannot cover everything in detail. freshacconci talktalk 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking into Malke 2010's edits, particularly the article he created, Catholic views on Mary, it's clear that this AfD and the others mentioned are POINTY noms. That he considers this article to be a POV fork when Catholic views on Mary is clearly a POV fork itself, it appears that the goal here is to eliminate articles that contradict his specific understanding of the topic. ‎freshacconci talktalk 15:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Freshacconci, and the 2nd WP:POINT warning was just deleted by Malke. History2007 (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article Catholic views on Mary has had redundant content added by History2007 who edit wars when attempts are made to remove it.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing bogus 'warnings' to editors because you don't like the editor or the edit, is not really a warning. It's letting the dog off the leash. Also, I'd already moved your 'warnings' to your talk page. You then put them back on mine.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The term "bogus" does not apply to the warning Malke, given that other editors on this page have considered this AFD a case of WP:POINT, and that several other editors (MikeNutley, Marauder, Xandar and myself) had considered the issues that led to the first warning a case of trying to make a point or the construction of a stalking horse. And the story does not end there, as you know, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian devotions which was one of the "rapid mass nominations" you performed a few days ago, user:Colonel Warden stated that he felt that was a case of nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. Your response to Colonel Warden was: There's no editing dispute. However, I do see a long history of editing disputes on this topic, going back to the merge proposal of September 28 2010, and even before. Indeed I feel that a 3rd warning or something is appropriate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian devotions given the Colonel's comment, and the denial thereafter. Moreover, I think not only are these issues taking up time that could have been used for more productive work, they are producing a "non productive" image of Wikipedia to new editors. A case in point is Willthacheerleader18 who is a relatively new Wikipedia editor. Having seen your edits, Willthacheerleader18 just asked a simple question: Can we block Malke from editing wikipedia.. they're just destroying it. I think that says a lot. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per all the things already mentioned by Johnbod.Marauder40 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, the article is both important and worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 14:50, 22 November 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.