Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Canon

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 REDIRECT to Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon. TerenceOng's rather summary dismissal doesn't really help a great deal, but the analysis by the other two editors is more useful. This seems like a harmless enough redirect, and there's little reason to simply retain content that contains established errors when error-free content is available elsewhere. -Splash^talk 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Canon

duplication of Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon Lima 08:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - By "duplication" I of course mean "dealing with the same matter", not "a carbon copy" Lima 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, not a duplicate. --Terence Ong 09:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect It's not a word-for-word duplication, but there is major overlap. The English translations in Roman Canon could be a useful addition to Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon, but the latter article contains most of the useful content. In fact, once the articles have been merged, I'd be inclined to rename the merged article as "Roman Canon". Paddles 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment By "duplication" I did not, of course, mean "copy". The full Latin text with English translation is already in Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon, one free from errors found in the Roman Canon article such as "is being shed" (in Latin, "effunditur"), as a translation of "effundetur" (will be shed), and "do" (in Latin, "facite") as a translation of "facietis" (you will do) in the phrase "do this in memory of Me". If in addition to the full text given in each section described a continuous text of the whole Canon were desired, a link to any of several websites would be enough. In short, what valid material is there to merge into the article that "contains most of the useful content"? (As for the quite separate question of renaming, we would have to consider also the candidacy of Canon of the Mass, with which most other articles link at present.) - I see now that I forgot to sign. Sorry. Lima 15:28, 25 May 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.