Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth Marian Dogma

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Marian Dogma

Delete. I fully concede that this may be down to some atheistic bias on my part, but really, this is surely an irredeemably incoherent article. Could it POSSIBLY be cleaned up to standard? Perhaps. Is there any way this is really going to happen? With the obscurity of the subject, I don't think so. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep and cleanup, as the Fifth Marian Dogma seems to be a Catholic belief [1]. From what I've read, the concept is similar to that of the Second Coming--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (almost strong). An utterly whacky concept, like most religious ideas. But an actual idea that seems to be part of the Marian movement. The article isn't very coherent, but the topic is legit. See, e.g. <http://www.mariansolidarity.com/ladyofallnations/dopp02c.html>. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Article is a candidate for cleanup but 'Fifth Marian Dogma' refers to a large popular movement within the Catholic Church to recognize Mary as co-redeemer. Through the years Mary has already been proclaimed as Mother of God, as virgin, as immaculately conceived (in 1854), as assumed into heaven body and soul (1950), and co-redeemer would be the fifth dogmatic proclamation. Reportedly five million signatures have been gathered since 1993 to support this. --Lockley 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've rewritten the article to address the AfD concerns. --Lockley 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I have heard of this, but frankly know nothing about it. Dan, the CowMan 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have strong atheistic tendencies and I hap no trouble following the article. Seano1 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• You didn't see the original version of it, then? :-) I am more then happy to retract my nomination given Lockley's excellent cleanup. I apologise to all if I have been overly vigilant in this matter. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• The original version contained a blatent Copyvio, which I removed. Looks good now. Dan, the CowMan 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not really any point in my voting here, since it's now an Obvious Keep, but I do want to say kudos to Lockley for his excellent work. After comparing his version with the last edit from the original author, I am amazed at how well he has organized and presented the material. Everyone should read both versions to see just what a good rewrite can do. Well done. Fan1967 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. Fringy though. Haikupoet 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just to say, great rewrite T K E 19:28, 30 March 2006 (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.