Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail Mary (translations)

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 of the debate was No consensus to delete. Prodego talk 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hail Mary (translations)

Was on {{prod}} , but template was removed. Article doesn't really belong in wikipedia and there doesn't seem to be another project where this can be moved to. Garion96 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It already was removed from Hail Mary, to create this article. Garion96 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Then change my vote to strong Keep. I know that comparative translations are important for language study, and I think they can be useful for anthropological and theological study, too. --Mikeblas 15:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to an appropriate location. — RJH (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least until someone can state and resolve the reason why not to keep, with the existence of The Lord's Prayer in different languages. Yes, the WP is not a repository of translations, but where is? Shenme 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is really a sub-page to the Hail Mary article in that it supplements the article. As there is no way that I know of to actually make it a kind of sub-page, I think it should be kept. But if not kept, at least move to Wikisource. Crypticfirefly 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mikeblas's opinion. --Starionwolf 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not this. I'm not sure about Wikisource, but c'mon these do not even give a reference to where the translations are from. Kotepho 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project. Fg2 00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If wikisource accepts this, then of course I also support a move. Garion96 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an english wiki, perhaps these translations can be put on other language wiki's and then interwiki linked. This does not serve english speaking people seeking encyclopedic information. HighInBC 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think all the languages have Wikipedias. And sometimes speakers of English do want texts in other languages. Is Wikisource the right Wikimedia project for it? Fg2 08:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, weakly. I created the article from material removed from Hail Mary mostly so that this discussion could happen before deleting it. It makes sense to have the English and the Latin versions in that article, but it snowballed from there, I guess. I do find it interesting, though. --Kbh3rdtalk 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete strongly. I didn't realise the Lord's prayer article existed: that should be deleted as well. Simply put, if you want the Hail Mary in a different language,go to that relevant wiki. Hail Mary itself isn't English, so it can't be difficult to find. I may be an inclusionist, but there are limits. Dev920 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Simply put, the relevant wiki might not have been started yet, and even if the Wiki has, the relevant article might not have been started. The information should be kept on some Wikimedia project. We should identify the project before deleting the article. Fg2 00:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you will find that all the languages that are on the page have their own wikipedias. There really is no reason to keep this, or the lord's prayer or any other translation pages on the english wikipedia Dev920 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, transwiki to WikiSource.  Grue  18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dev920. Armon 14:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --JJay 16:49, 3 June 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.