This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this going to be ever expanded ? The name is quite silly. --Taw

This was a section in the article that also had the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene, I thought it best to give those two their own articles, but what to do with this Mary? --SimonP

I think this should just be removed. I'm sure there is already what little info this article has to offer on the Virgin Mary section. --Jzcool

Its a different Mary, she was important enough to be included in Christian Encyclopedias so she should stay. The bizzare name of the article is the problem. Perhaps 'Mary of Rom. 16:6' would be better? --SimonP

If it is going to be expanded to more than 1 line maybe. If there is no other info about her, then this article makes no sense. --Taw

Merge this article into the main Mary page, as a subheading? It might not be important enough to stand as its own article, but the information needs to be somewhere. -- dreamyshade

Subheading seems right. --Taw

This encyclopaedia entry title is ridiculous and silly. Is someone claiming that this person is so imporant that eventually an entire article will be written on her? Of course not. Stop writing new entries for such small things. This should be deleted, and the information moved to some other entry where it actually would be relevent.

I agree with the guy above. This is nothing more than a dictionary entry and abuses the purpose of Wikipedia. Unless substantial info can be added, we should delete it. --Jzcool

What's it hurt to just leave it here? I added more information, and wikied some relevant words. --Jimbo Wales

It certainly hurts nothing to leave it here, where nothing redirects to it and no one who needs it will ever find it. These few lines would be well at Mary, is my opinion. --Wetman 03:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

..yet may I add that this is an example of dictionary thinking— Bible Dictionary in particular— and not encyclopedic thinking. Dictionary thinking divides text into small pieces, so that understanding is lost with the eliminated context.--Wetman 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The title was the best thing in the article and now it's gone, another victim of the humorless squares. Ortolan88