Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Publications 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 Delete. --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 

Early Publications of Jehovah's Witnesses

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The majority of these are just links to a site which is subject to a DMCA takedown notice. None of these publications appears to have an article, so t he list of links is not navigational, it's a bibliography which I need to unlink per WP:C, leaving not much. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this appears to be a link repository rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The links I tried were working fine when I visited the page; if someone is claiming copyright over stuff published in the 1860's, it seems more likely that it's an attempt to suppress uncomplimentary material than a valid copyright claim. A group that wants to silence its critics by trying to use a controversial U.S. law the DMCA to have material pulled from a website -- especially one as otherwise well known as the Jehovah's Witnesses -- is a quite notable subject matter. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the site hoists material right up to the present day, including material that is unquestionably still copyright. They make no distinction between copyright infringing and copyright expired.  That is the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. The subject title implies that this is going to be an encyclopedia entry on the subject of early Jehovah's Witness writings, which would merit inclusion.  The current state of the article is nothing more than a massive linkfarm.  With an extreme amount of work (getting rid of the useless linkspam and actually writing on the subject in the title) by someone knowledgable on the subject I would easily change to a keep vote.  Arkyan 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete will change if this article can get some real content, right now it has too many external links. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is supposed to be a counterpart to List of Watchtower publications, which is similar in design. The publications listed here are all quite old. Are there copyright issues with the links here (which come from a variety of sources)? I'd be willing to work at re-writing the page to meet objections mentioned here. Are lists like this and List of Watchtower publications not suitable material? Would it be preferred to create linked articles for each title? That could be done but would require some time. Would it be better to put the titles into paragraphs of text? Dtbrown 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is without prejudice with regards to the topic, the notability of the topic or the good faith and good judgment of the editors. It's normally reasonable to assume you're not linking to a copyright violation. I also want to emphasize that I am not taking a stand on either side of the main church vs the dissenters, theologically, or on the merits of their copyright dispute. I also have nothing against the Jehovah's Witness movement in general and I am very sensitive to deleting articles dealing with matters of faith. The problem as I see it is copyright. The article relies heavily on reexamine.info links and by our own policies, we need to remove these links -- and promptly. I am open to others recreating the article in the future if alternate, legally acceptable links are found. --A. B. (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are not most (if not all--I'm not sure exactly where the cut-off is) of the publications listed in this article no longer subject to copyright? Dtbrown 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See the following:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist
 * That page is frequently archived; so here's a permanent link if the discussion above has been archived
 * Like it or not, the links have to go regardless of this article's disposition. I also don't think we're in a good position to judge which links violate copyright and which don't. --A. B. (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Links are my bottom line -- fix the reexamine link issue and I'm fine with keeping or merging. --A. B. (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining what is going on and I understand the need to remove the links. Is there any way to find out who lodged the complaint? Dtbrown 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and I belive I have removed all links to reexamine.info in this article. Perhaps others could double check this. I have also tried to supply other "legally acceptable links". Dtbrown 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A day or two, the home page said closed for maintenance, but you could still load at least some of the links (very, very slowly -- felt like a 14k modem connection) --A. B. (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is replete with articles that are simply lists, so that alone is not justification for deleting the article. Whether the publications are out of copyright or not has no bearing on whether the publications may be listed. However, links to sites hosting material without permission that are still protected by copyright should be removed. Most of the listed publications are no longer protected by copyright. The article should probably be renamed "List of early JW publications" to make the intent of the article unambiguous. Another suitable alternative would be to merge with "List of Watchtower Publications" as a subsection. There is no valid reason for removing the information altogether.--Jeffro77 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thise lists are navigational. This is not.  It's a bibliography, and every single liknk is (a) a weblink  (WP:EL, WP:NOT a link farm) and (b) of no externally verifiable significance.  This is just a list fo the publications some editor(s) thought were significant, it is unsourced. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a list of publications that may be of informational interest to persons researching subjects related to Jehovah's Witnesses. It may also prompt editors to provide further information or create articles on some of those publications that may be of specific relevance. It therefore has some value. As previously stated, it should probably be merged with "List of Watchtower Publications".--Jeffro77 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the idea to retitle this "List of Early Watchtower Publications" or to merge it with the complimentary List of Watchtower publications is a good idea. Dtbrown 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: comment on links At the moment the web site for rexamine.info gives a message of "Closed for Maintenance" and all links to pages on that sight are nonoperative.DGG 00:25, 2 March 2007 (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.