Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses


 * 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   redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices of Jehovah&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an improper use of a disambiguation page. The title, if it exists at all, should redirect to one of the two subjects brought together under it. bd2412 T 18:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If, for some reason, somebody were to type this in as a search term (unlikely), they would be better served seeing these two relevant pages at the top of the search results. Leading readers through disambiguation pages unnecessarily is an annoyance. Kansan (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete Redirect (see below). This disambiguation page exists because it was the original article name prior to a split into two separate articles. It should be noted that the two target articles are not the top two search results (they are currently in the top 60 but not top 40 results for this specific phrase). However, it seems unlikely that anyone would search for this particular phrase unless they already know about the article, in which case they would probably already know it's been split.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If it was a page that was split into two, then it can't be deleted as it holds the edit history and thus attribution for this text. Perhaps some history merge can be done though. Edgepedia (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merging or redirecting would be a reasonable solution. It just can't be a disambig page like this. bd2412  T 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename It's true the article has a long history attached to it. But this is a very unlikely search term. Could it be called Jehovah's Witnesses disambiguation or something like that? --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a main JW article, so Jehovah's Witnesses disambiguation isn't really an obvious name for the sub-articles to the exclusion of the main one. Maybe this page could just redirect to the main JW article? It provides an overview with links to the sub-articles.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that the page as it stands doesn't disambiguate anything. The concepts are not ambiguous, they are merely different aspects of a single broader concept. bd2412  T 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses, the first of the two sections relating to the topics on the Jehovah's Witnesses article. This page doesn't disambiguate anything and is an unlikely search term. — Bility (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2011 (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.