Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mother Teresa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NishantXavier (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 31 August 2023 (→Criticism of Mother Teresa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticism of Mother Teresa

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Criticism of Mother Teresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear POV cruft. It is easy to find criticism about just any worldwide icon but it doesn't means we need a page on it.

The main page already has Mother Teresa#Criticism so this page is entirely unnecessary. See WP:NOPAGE and this section of WP:NOCRIT. Capitals00 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At this writing, the parent article is 123.7 KB in length; this AFD target is 35.2 (according to popup data). Beyond weakly suggesting WP:Article size#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections as recommended reading while handling cases like this, I'll let others determine the latter's fate. May God have mercy on this subject's contributors... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Christianity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for neutral POV and cleanup. It seems fairly clear that high profile authors have written in-depth articles on this topic, therefore it is unquestionably notable. There is a lot more to say therefore this could easily overload the parent article, so a seperate article seems justified. JMWt (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably be a Merge but I'm certainly not going to volunteer for the job. It's impossible to achieve a neutral point of view on an article whose title is basically "overview of everything bad about X". The very definition of the article is that it is not a neutral point of view. Contrast this with J._K._Rowling, a high-profile person who has attracted well-documented criticism. Instead of having a criticism section, the article buds off into Political views of J. K. Rowling, a neutral title that permits us to describe those who've criticised her points of view, as well as the points of view. We ought to do something similar with Mother Teresa. The problem is that because the criticism covers more-or-less every aspect of her life and ministry, we can't bud off a new article for just the bit that gets criticised. Basically the only fair and neutral thing to do would be to merge the criticisms into every single bit of the main article, but Slgrandson is right to note that the article may become rather long (at the moment it's the references that make it so bulky, which is less of a concern), and I feel rather the same as they do about God having mercy on anyone who cares to attempt the task. Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, so you don't think it is possible to have a en.wp page describing a contentious issue? JMWt (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply unnecessary. One can create Criticism of Martin Luther King Jr. and flood it with anybody who opposed him, but wikipedia should not be used for it per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOCRIT. Capitals00 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a view. Out there in the rest of en.wp this is clearly not the current consensus given there are many criticism pages like Criticism of Wikipedia. The usual notability standards apply, and if many writers have published notable RS books on the topic, it is notable. JMWt (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scandal that involved Mother Teresa which could be converted into "criticism". Capitals00 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SOAPBOX. Violates NPOV. I don't see how anything can be NPOV if its' a stand-alone listing of the negatives of one individual, without the positives. All sourced, of course. But there's no NPOV here. And it serves no purpose except to list all the alleged shortcomings of Mother Teresa. For any public figure, alive or deceased, it is not hard to find published criticisms of them as individuals or of their accomplishments - and source each one with some public figure or organization making the accusation. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is simply a diatribe that cites partisan figures who have an axe to grind against the subject. As noted by the OP, any criticism is already mentioned in the main article. desmay (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main article on Mother Teresa already has a criticism section. No need for a new page just on one person. No extensive academic literature exists on this topic. No criticism pages exist for Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler either so why single out this individual? It looks like dumping ground for polemic sources bashing an individual rather than a worthy encyclopedic entry. Most sources are newspaper commentaries, not academic so WP:NOTNEWS seems applicable here. Looks like WP:COATRACK of the main Mother Teresa article. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not aWP:COATRACK. A coatrack is an aritcle that pretends to be about something different from the actual topic. For lots of (hopefully) obvious reasons, articles in the format "Criticism of..." I am sure would normally need swift deletion. However the subject is notable in it's own right, there are plenty very reliable sources specifically dedicated to this topic, I list some examples below. Normally, the obvious place for criticisms should be in the article itself, but at 125,975 bytes, WP:SIZERULE directs us towards splitting content. It is therefore normal to have a the section Mother_Teresa#Criticism and then a fuller article. Sources that illustrate meeting WP:GNG:
  1. Why Mother Teresa is still no saint to many of her critics, Washington Post
  2. ‘Troubled individual:’ Mother Teresa no saint to her critics, CNN
  3. Mother Teresa's Canonization: Controversy Mars Nun's Work, NBC
  4. A Critic’s Lonely Quest: Revealing the Whole Truth About Mother Teresa, New York Times
  5. Mother Teresa was 'anything but a saint,' Canadian study says, Globe and Mail
  6. Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, Slate
  7. Mother Teresa: Why the Catholic missionary is still no saint to her critics, The Independent
  8. Unmasking Mother Teresa's Critics (2016 book)
  9. The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice 1995 book

I'd encourage others to search for sources. CT55555(talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

critique ≠ attack CT55555(talk) 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa&oldid=1173169424"