Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mother Teresa


 * 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.

I find that there are rational and policy-based arguments on both sides of the debate, and neither has a clear numerical lead. This means that the appropriate outcome of the AFD is no consensus.

I have carefully considered my decision before closing, and will not change it based on talk page requests. If any editor believes I have not followed the deletion process correctly, please proceed directly to WP:DRV; I waive any requirement that there may be to discuss or consult with me first. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of Mother Teresa

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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 so this page is entirely unnecessary. See WP:NOPAGE and this section of WP:NOCRIT. Capitals00 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There is no scandal that involved Mother Teresa which could be converted into "criticism". Capitals00 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * it's certainly possible to have articles about contentious issues, but you have to have both sides of the argument in one article, or it's not neutral. I rather like 's suggestion of Public image of Mother Teresa. Elemimele (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "No criticism pages exist for Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler either" - it's interesting that you're comparing Mother Theresa to Hitler and bin-Laden. We have an entire category for criticism of individuals. DS (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The point was that people who have extensive criticisms like bin Laden and Hitler do not have pure criticism pages. This asymmetry shows the inconsistency of pages on criticism.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd encourage others to search for sources. (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. The article about Mother Teresa is already very long. Having a separate article seems to be justified. I agree that separate "criticism" articles should be handled very carefully, but that is debatable on the talk pages of those articles. Retimuko (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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
 * All the sources you mentioned are newspapers and polemical. There are not much in terms of academic sources on this. The article shows such poor sourcing. As such, the content can be condensed and Put in the main article of Mother Teresa.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, two of the links above are books. If for any reason you discount newspapers as reliable sources, then please consider these academic sources:
 * Was Mother Teresa Maximizing Her Utility? An Idiographic Application of Rational Choice Theory Susan Kwilecki, Loretta S. Wilson, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 205-221 (17 pages), https://doi.org/10.2307/1387521•
 * Larivée, S., Sénéchal, C., & Chénard, G. (2013). Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008429812469894 (translation: The Dark Sides of Mother Teresa) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429812469894
 * Mother Teresa's care for the dying, David Jeffrey, Joseph, O'Neill, Gilly Burn Published:October 15, 1994DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91759-0 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2894%2991759-0/fulltext (described as https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/25/why-to-many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/ a critical account of the care in Teresa’s facilities in 1994]")
 * From the University of Montreal: Mother Teresa: anything but a saint...
 * CT55555 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's another book: https://www.librarything.com/work/159175 CT55555 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These do not look like extensive criticisms of Mother Teresa that cannot be put in the criticism section of the main article on her. Also some of these are not full criticisms of her, like the Lancelet piece you mentioned which is the most academic of the sources you mentioned. Very few academic sources exist, most are newspaper commentaries. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIARY apply here. Like other have motioned above, there is no Criticism of Martin Luther King Jr. and although he was extensively criticized for being non-violent and using inefficient tactics for black people's well being as opposed to political showmanship, there is no stand alone article for it. The criticism section of Mother Teresa is enough to place these criticisms and responses.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep raising the bar. But the bar is WP:GNG and I think even the newspaper articles pass that bar. In combination with books and academic sources, I think we are way past the that WP:GNG bar.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is part of a commonly quoted essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and is my thinking about the relevance of pointing out a lack of articles for other people. I could list all the "Criticisms of..." articles to rebut that (Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Pope John Paul II) but these tend not to be considered persuasive arguments at AFD. CT55555 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Jesus and Muhammad are world icons and popes are always major representatives of religion and politics as well. But Mother Teresa is a poor nun. Seems out of proportion and not worthy of a stand alone article. I never said criticism has no place. It’s just overdone on a poor nun. I don’t see a criticism of Dalai Lama or criticism of saints page. Does seem like WP:ATTACK. &#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * She is literally a saint. Jesus was poor too. But that's besides the point. It's not about a criteria, it's about what reliable sources publish. CT55555 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But Articles for deletion/Meher Baba’s critics was deleted. Criticism about Jesus is mainly about diverse interpretations that he has been subjected to but there is no such case with Mother Teresa since her biography is totally conclusive. Criticism of Pope John Paul II needs to go as well but I will think about it later. Capitals00 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * GNG only says what necessary to keep an article, but see WP:N: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and that's what's being discussed here. Nigej (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is an WP:ATTACKPAGE that violates WP:NPOV based on the writings of those affiliated the New Atheist movement. NishantXavier (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * critique ≠ attack CT55555 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Friend, I'm from India, and I can tell you Hitchens et al have no clue what they're talking about. Hitchens should first come to Calcutta and other places in India and minister for hours to the Poorest of the Poor and the Sick and the Needy like Mother Theresa did, after that he can run his mouth off, enlightened by his experience. Talk is cheap. Here is a Wall Street Journal Video mention some in India, Devout Hindus, worship Mother Theresa as a Goddess. They were and are so impressed by her life of sacrifices and love for the Poor and maternal kindness. Hitchens didn't get any of that. He envied her fame and success, which she never asked for, but got because she showed true love. Mother Theresa donated 1000s of hours of her life helping and sacrificing for India's Poor? How many hours of his life did Hitchens give for India's Poor? That says it all. That's why people of all castes and all faiths in India love, respect and venerate Saintly Mother Theresa. NishantXavier (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The WSJ Video: "Why Some in India Worship Mother Teresa as a Goddess" https://youtube.com/40rO1im27R8 NishantXavier (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your original research and point of views are noted, but should not be influential in our editing decisions. CT55555 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly rename: There are reliable sources, both in print and online covering the topic. Perhaps the article should be renamed to Philanthropy of Mother Teresa with the respective criticism section included (WP:UNDUE). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. As someone who has edited this article quite a bit trying to clean it up, I can honestly say I don't see how it can be salvaged in a NPOV way. There isn't scandals which this is talking about, this is simply a litany of primary sources of certain individuals' criticisms. The only balanced form for this content would be an article like Public image of Mother Teresa, which would include both negative and (vastly more commonly held) positive views.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:Criticism of individuals, shows the majority are articles turned into re-directs to the main bio article of the individual. Which probably gives us an idea of how to handle this in tune with Wikipedia criticisms of individuals. Otherwise, much of the above dialog reminds me of someone I know who has a habit of negating compliments about an individual with, "Oh, yeah ... I can tell you things about that person you won't like." That does seem to be where this is going ... editors who want to make sure we know Mother Teresa was a flawed human being. — Maile  (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction - without exception, those redirects were created as redirects. DS (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why you feel that none of the reported criticism rises to the level of "scandal"? DS (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the article mentions only those views that comes from sources that merely disagreed with the views or actions of Mother Teresa instead of pointing out any incidents where she universally deserved contempt. That is clearly missing here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because rather than criticizing scandalous occurrences, the article is currently more like "list of negative things these five people have said about Mother Teresa". The article is more to do with Hitchens and co, than Teresa and most of the sources are FROM these critics. The only proof that these claims are notable are THE CLAIM ITSELF. How is that possibly neutral in an encyclopedic setting?
 * Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice is a notable book, plus all the newspaper articles I listed here that are news about the criticism appears to refute your point that the claims are not notable, I think. CT55555 (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The book is notable, and many of the articles are talking about Hitchen's book/criticism. But this does not mean a "Criticism of Mother Teresa" article must exist. Instead I'd say the content belongs in the book's article, or in Hitchen's article in a section called "views on Mother Teresa". Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Reads like attack page. Most of the sources are partisan in nature and it's not possible to achieve neutrality here. NavjotSR (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep- After reading nearly half article I think this should be kept. It requires cleanup. Since this is about criticism it seems hard to maintain NPOV. But it still deserves to be a seperate article because the content is elaborated and claims are supported with references.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 17:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a difficult one. On the one hand, the topic of criticism is obviously notable. On the other hand, the article is poorly-written: in some cases it has such big WP:UNDUE issues that it looks like the article wants to persuade the reader that she was a bad person. The article needs to be much more balanced. IMO, whether WP:TNT applies here to justify the deletion or not is where the discussion should focus on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ktrimi991, even if we accept that the topic of criticism is notable, I don't think it is balanced to have an article solely dedicated to it. Would you consider WP:TNTing in favour of an article called Public image of Mother Teresa or something similar which would include both positive and negative? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * my thoughts are further eloborated on below in my !vote comment. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources listed by supports that a standalone article is warranted. However, I agree with others that the article is currently in a poor state. Renaming the article to use a less emotive word that "criticism" could also help. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:ATTACK. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia giving summaries of topic. This page goes well beyond that, per WP:UNDUE. To go into such detail about this woman see grossly excessive to me. A criticism section in her article seems sufficient to me. Nigej (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please carefully review the WP:ATTACK policy. Let me give a couple of relevant quotes "An attack page is ... material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced". The article in question is well sourced and is written in encyclopedic tone. And further the policy states: "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject". So according to the policy the article in question is not an attack. Retimuko (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly the fact that it's called "Criticism of ..." indicates that it will be entirely negative in tone. Sentences like: "Christopher Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult that promoted suffering and did not help those in need." don't seem encyclopedic to me, even if it is sourced. This article is simply a random list of negative things, bloated to excessive length. A few sentences in the main article is more than enough. At the end of the day she's just a nun; we don't even have an article Criticism of Adolf Hitler, why we should have one on her is a mystery to me. All very excessive and not encyclopedic. Nigej (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The text you quoted tells the reader neutrally, without taking sides, in encyclopedic tone about the fact that Hitchens, a well-known writer, wrote something, that was widely published, and therefore notable. What is your criteria for calling such notable facts "random" and not encyclopedic? What do you mean by "she's just a nun"? She is a very famous nun, a nun promoted to a saint. Not many nuns were that famous. All these comparisons to Hitler and others seem to be of the WP:OTHERSTUFF sort. Retimuko (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, and should not be quoted as policy. I think @Nigej is raising a valid point that having an article "Criticism of Person A" while not having similar articles for the vastly more criticized Person B, Person C, or Person D creates a WP:neutrality concern where the wikivoice simply by having the article seems to unduly privilege the criticism of one person. It isn't that "in order to have this article, we need to have some other article, it's the fact that Wikipedia very rarely uses "Criticism of Person" articles, and so we need to consider how it will look for our readers to have this article. That is what being discussed, and is a completely different to what WP:OTHERSTUFF is talking about. Given that NPOV is one of Wikipedia's foundational policies this is a very serious concern, and not something that can be dismissed lightly and certainly not on the basis of a mere essay. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you misrepresent or misunderstand what NPOV means. It is not about giving equal weight to positive and negative information about something or somebody. It is about Wikipedia not taking sides and describing what reliable sources say, not exaggerating, not downplaying, not making judgements in Wikipedia voice. Retimuko (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that my argument is partly based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. However, my point is that there are countless thousands of "Criticism of Person" articles that could be created, but we only seem to have a very small number. To me this indicates that editors are using the discretion at WP:N which says that even if there are sources which might indicate that an article is justified "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." And that would be my choice here, to "merge" this into the main article (although I'm not sure any actual merging is required since the main article already has such a section). This sort of article is problematic for Wikipedia. It's difficult to maintain NPOV and UNDUE and it's not something we do at all well. More suitable for a political magazine rather than an encyclopedia IMO. Nigej (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "there are countless thousands of "Criticism of Person" articles that could be created, but we only seem to have a very small number" - so what are you waiting for, then? DS (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would I create any such articles when I know that Wikipedia is truly terrible at maintaining them in any sort of encyclopedic style: WP:CANOFWORMS? Nigej (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Criticism" and "Controversies" sections are bad enough in biographical articles; having a separate article for such sections is even worse. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is clearly a topic which passes WP:GNG, and is large enough to where a split from the main article is desirable. If there are any POV concerns they should be dealt with in the article, AfD is not cleanup. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete That the topic of criticism is notable is very obvious. However, the article in its current form is too crappy, poorly written and way below encyclopedic standards. It is a mashup of "This guy criticized her for..." and "Another guy came to her defence". Cleanup is applied when there are major parts of the article with such issues. But in this case, the entire article is substandard. IMO, this one should be deleted as per WP:TNT, and another one should be created (preferably named "Public image of Mother Teresa" because her praise is as significant and notable as her criticism is). The new article should be much more balanced, both in POV and tone, and focus on widely discussed academic sources rather than mention what has been said by every journalist out there. At the moment, this really is not much more than a demonization page. The fact that other demonization articles exist on Wikipedia should not justify the existence of this one. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup. In your attempt to show that the article is beyond improvement you use statements such as "too crappy" and "poorly written" that seem to be baseless. You seem to grossly downplay books by well-known authors published by reputable publishing houses. You call them "mashup" of "this guy...". This sort of argumentation seems to be borderline "I don't like it". Retimuko (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "AFD is not a cleanup" is an essay, not a policy. I am not "attempting" anything, I just expressed my opinion. It is not a matter of liking or disliking, though I do not give a f about what you think about me and my intention. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * > "AFD is not a cleanup" is an essay, not a policy
 * So is WP:TNT that you bought up as an argument. Retimuko (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is not my argument, it is an essay that gives guidance on how to proceed in cases where the argument I made is applied to an article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So is "AFD is not a cleanup". Retimuko (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a violation of WP:NPOV as there is not enough controversy to justify a seperate article from the controversy section in the main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOPAGE. She is globally celebrated so obviously she is going to attract criticism for her work but to think that we need a dedicated page for criticism about a 20th century icon is simply too much. CharlesWain (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please carefully look at WP:NOPAGE. It says that "the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes". In my view your wording suggests that you are using you personal dislike. Retimuko (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - There's a massive amount of coverage of criticism of Mother Theresa. Multiple books have been written on the subject. It's absolutely notable, and is categorically not an WP:ATTACK page (see WP:NEGATIVESPIN for the explicit exception). The question is whether it needs its own page or should just be included in the main article, which at this point is inadequate. So retain a bunch of the material and make the decision based on article size vs. WP:NOPAGE. I'm torn between them, but lean slightly towards merge. At very least, I'd be curious what a better fleshed out version of a criticism (or similar) section of the main page would look like. I'd also be curious to hear from editors who may have tried to expand that section in the past, and whether/why their efforts were unsuccessful. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Mother Teresa, as one of the most important Christian figures of the 20th century, is at the center of criticism from atheists. It has more to do with religion itself than with her. The criticism in the main article is more than enough.HokutoKen (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. A bunch of new or relatively new users showing up to delete here. Wonder where this has been posted. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, in my case, to quench your curiosity, here at the Article alerts. HokutoKen (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Links to this page CT55555 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We must be careful not to distort the RFC by claiming there has been canvassing when is no evidence of canvassing concurring. Please remember that 'new accounts who disagree with me' are not automatically canvassed. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what a "new user" is. Probably I'm not one but don't usually comment in this area. In my case it came up in a list of "User contributions" for a couple of users I'd had interactions with on a completely different topic. No canvassing involved. Nigej (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. A bunch of new or relatively new users showing up to delete here Hmmm, maybe you should read Poisoning the well. Apart from HokutoKen, all the other editors who have !voted "Delete" have been on Wikipedia for at least 2 years (most have been for more than 4). So there is not a "bunch of new or relatively new" editors. Not to mention that the value of a comment is judged by its basis on deletion policies and guidelines, not by anything else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Even Hokutoken is not a new user. He is editing since last year without becoming dormant. Another editor here is "Shaan Sengupta" who is editing since this year but he clearly came here after watching my recent contributions but he was not canvassed. Template removed. Capitals00 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2023 (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.