Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Dei and civil leaders

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei and civil leaders

Opus Dei and civil leaders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page has no clear focus, exists just to promote Opus Dei. There is no need for a page just to discuss the Opus Dei and civil leaders. There are 22 different Opus Dei subpages on Wikipedia, and the remaining pages are sufficient to cover Opus Dei's relationship with Civil Leaders.

I am also nominating Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations for deletion. That page's title prevents its complying with NPOV-- it is merely a POV fork that exists just to present one side of the Controversies about Opus Dei. --Alecmconroy 10:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Is this Opus Dei propaganda or something? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as per nom Emeraude 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a merge? Maybe it should be merged into the "main" article if it contains any views not presented in that, to provide further coverage of it and try to neutralize that. Remember, things that aren't originally neutral can be neutralized and titles can be changed. 170.215.83.4 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the Controversy article does need a total rewrite, but I don't think there are any thoughts here that aren't touched on by the main controversy article. That said-- I certainly wouldn't object to anyone keeping a private copy of the to-be-deleted pages article around in their userspace in order to guide us in future edits of the controversy page. I personally don't know that it will help, but if anyone thinks it will, that's cool. But we should delete it from the main namespace-- by its very nature, this page will never be NPOV, and we have no business calling it an article. --Alecmconroy 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom and Ter. ---Charles 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into main Opus Dei article. Personally, I do wish the hooha about OD would die down. There's nothing worth arguing about, in my opinion. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both as POV. Where new points made in these articles are NPOV they should be incorporated in the Controversies article. WMMartin 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per above points. Sharkface217 03:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All info is contained in Opus Dei. --Tbeatty 15:17, 2 December 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.