Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Dei and politics


 * 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 was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Opus Dei and politics

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

This article has been around for quite some time, and there have been multiple discussions on the talk page about WP:NPOV issues with the article, many of which persist to this day; however, there has not been an editor that has been simultaneously willing, well informed, and (presumably) neutral enough to fix it. It relies heavily on anonymous authority to support various claims regarding the political stance of Opus Dei, and is preoccupied with distancing Opus Dei from far right politics rather than delivering a neutral assessment of the the politics of Opus Dei. Moreover, the topic may not even warrant an article of its own, and could be integrated into Opus Dei, Controversies about Opus Dei, or Opus Dei in society (another page suffering from issues). HighPriestDuncan (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Christianity. HighPriestDuncan (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject is notable and has been written about extensively. The article is in lousy shape, but it looks like both "sides" are responsible for that. And there's been a lot of pointless tagging rather than editing. What is there includes a lot of the points that one would want to hit in an article about this topic and a lot of the sources are referred to as well, although they need to be integrated together with the facts. Jahaza (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The article doesn't satisfy any of the conditions for deletion. It should be discussed and cleaned up. Merging may be an option. BruceThomson (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This article has the feel of an ATTACK page. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Controversies about Opus Dei and a new article on Opus Dei and Francoist Spain. The notability of the topics discussed in the article are not in question. But I agree that the title of the article lends itself to being an attack piece/battleground, and instead the article could be better split in several directions to avoid this and also more sensibly categorise different controversies (really, the Hitler and Francoist Spain controversies are mostly historical whereas the title implies more contemporary controversies).  Firstly, a 'Political controversies' section could be added to Controversies about Opus Dei, discussing the general picture, controversy with Hitler, and controversy of Opus Dei's (contemporary) political influence.  The Hitler controversy could be a separate subsection here.  Secondly, the controversies regarding Francoist Spain merit an article in their own right (the discussion about Francoist Spain constitutes most of the current article).  I think an article like Jesuits and Nazi Germany sets a precedent. _  MB190417  _ (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep yeah, it goes beyond Franco. The article right now is a mess, but you could write a doctoral dissertation on this topic if you wanted, and notability is not in question. Its a question of whether or not we should have it as its own article. Deletion isn't a substitution for cleanup, and I don't think the merger proposal is a good one: this could be a really well done article on its own, and redirecting/merging wouldn't help that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 6 January 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.