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 merge to Mariology of the popes. As with the others articles in theis group, a speedy merge is the obvious and inevitable conclusion here. Nobody, including the nominator, has any arguments against doing that DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology of Pope Leo XIII (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)

duplication of content/content fork. Already exists on Mariology of the popes as well as on Leo XIII Malke 2010 (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Mariology of the popes. Why delete text that relates to an existing article? No clear reasons are given that the merger will not benefit more than an outright deletion. Merger will be suitable to preserve the material given that the main article Mariology of the popes clearly relates to it. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Speedy redirect with Mariology of the popes, since the content has already been merged and this is a likely search term. Article is a content fork, but not a POV fork, so I highly doubt anyone would contest a redirect. As WP:BEFORE mentions, "consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case".--res Laozi speak 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is content here that is not present in Mariology of the popes, so a merge would be more appropriate. What is the rush for speedy? These popes died years ago, a few days will not make s difference, and a merge can handle it in a smooth way without loss of content. I do think there is need for consolidation, but let us not lose content and do things in an orderly manner. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is true. My comment was made before I realised the nom was mass nominating Mariology related articles, so I assumed in good faith that he was accurate that the article was content fork. You've made a good point, and I've switched to a merge accordingly.--res Laozi speak 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, these are "mass nominations" as you stated. There were several more, and an editor stated (correctly in my view) on another nominated page that they are cases of WP:POINT as a result of other events. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content to Mariology of the popes & the bio as appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content to Mariology of the popes and new merge request on that page should be removed. Marauder40 (talk) 15:06, 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.