Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation


 * 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, without prejudice to any future merge proposal. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable, third party sources. Withdrawing nomination, see discussion below. --Explodicle (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to lack of significant coverage in third party reliable sources.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. Mh29255 (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you believe a redirect is in order, would you perhaps think that redirecting this to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would be more acceptable than to the main article of Jehovah's Witnesses? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep True as it may be that this article contains not one single source that isn't self-published by the Witnesses themselves, I think the Watchtower publications serve as a good enough source to back up any claims on their own beliefs and, therefore, falls within the acceptable use guideline of WP:SELFPUB. The article itself makes no mention of anything factual that absolutely requires a reliable third party source. All it talks about is a belief held by the religious followers and that belief is outlined in their own publication. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at item #7 of WP:SELFPUB. --Explodicle (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read point #7 and you definitely bring up a valid point but I think that the article can still fit within SELFPUB. Like I said, the Watchtower or the article report only on their own beliefs and their beliefs are really only governed by themselves and the Watchtower. I find it reciprocal enough that self-published material can safely be used in an article such as this one. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree that these direct sources are useful in establishing the accuracy of the article, I don't think they establish the notability of these beliefs outside the Jehovah's Witness community. If the discussion with Shoessss below yields some third party sources with which an entire article can be written, then I'm all for using the Watchtower sources to supplement them. --Explodicle (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge as this may be of use on the main topic page. Lu  na  ke  et  14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Did anyone do a Google News search? If they did they would have found over 7,000 hits under "Jehovah's Witnesses" Salvation as shown here .  Likewise for Google Scholar with hits in excess of 3,000, as provide here . Lastly, how about checking on Google Books which just happens to show over 700 as listed here .  Why on earth, would we nominate an article that has been around since 2006 – is referenced (though you may not agree with Watchtower, they are a respected publication) – and clearly written?  I guess it is just easier to delete than improve is the only rational I can come up with. ShoesssS Talk 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one of those hits is a reliable source? --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe your first question is the relevant one. The rest are totally up to personal interpretations.  So here you go!  The second one down is the USA Today.  The third one down is the Miami Herald  the forth one is the New York Times  the fifth one down is the Sun Herald  the sixth one is from the Buffalo News.  Do I need to continue through all 7,000?  ShoesssS Talk 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which search are you talking about? Please provide the direct links here. --Explodicle (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Comment I must interject here just to say that the Google search as you performed it does not offer concrete proof of availability of sources on this topic. Using "Jehovah's Witnesses" Salvation as a search string brings up a lot of hits that have nothing to do with this subject rather it brings up many articles that contain the the words "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Salvation Army" in the same article, such as the first hit in the link you provided. The Google search is inconclusive. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not a problem - What you suggest is a valid question. In the first 10 hits, out of 7,000, at least 6 dealt specificly with the topic we are discussing here.  Two dealt with the ongoing fight with the "Salvation Army". And the other two, i did not even look at that closely.  Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So... Exactly which sources do you think we could use? The burden of proof is on you; I'm not going to go on what might be a futile search for good sources I couldn't find in the first place. --Explodicle (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes articles that shouldn't exist slip through the cracks for a while. I don't think article age should be a factor in deletion discussions. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how much you respect the Watchtower, they are not a third-party source. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't know how "clearly written" an article is has anything to do with a topic's verifiability. --Explodicle (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Shoessss' thorough analysis. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge The lack of third-party sources is clearly problematic, but the subject matter has value and would be better served in the context of the Jehovah's Witnesses article. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as appropriate to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. As pointed out the lack of third-party sources is troubling, and the content is more appropriate for a religious tract than an encyclopedia entry.  A brief summary in the main article is more than sufficient. Arkyan 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. When discussing Jehovah's Witness beliefs, official publications by the movement are probably the most authoritative sources for describing those beliefs.  No strong opinion on whether this should be merged into Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses or not, but there appears to be enough material for a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How does the Watchtower establish the notability of their beliefs on salvation outside the Jehovah's Witness community? --Explodicle (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By the same reasoning, you'd have us delete an article on transubstantiation on the grounds that it has no currency beyond the Roman Catholic Church. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are a notable community, as they are, then the organization of articles about their distinctive beliefs is purely a matter of convenience and readability, with the only caveat being to fork out detailed sections about particular doctrines if it seems that otherwise they would receive undue emphasis.  The detail here seems long enough to support a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Actually, several other viewpoints are described in that article, but that's not what we're discussing anyways.) Notability is not inherited just because it is part of a series on a notable topic. WP:V, one of the core policies Wikipedia is built on, clearly states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (my italics) --Explodicle (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you're questioning the reliability of the sources in this article. But, since you italicized the words third-party, are you suggesting that the sources in question are not third-party sources at all? Or did you just mean to italicize the word reliable? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * -Comment - My two cents! Explodicle does make a valid argument, in that a vast majority of the references, both in the article and the Keep positions expressed here, are from Watchtower, which is the publishing arm of the  Jehovah's Witnesses organization, (thereby being biased in the fact that they are the publishing association for the Jehovah's Witnesses’s).  However, the contentions I pointed to earlier, even discounting Watchtower, who I personally have read and found no problems with regarding reliability and creditability (within reason), was that there is more than enough independent – reliable – verifiable sources to pull from.  Which would than make this piece suitable for Wikipedia, with some additional references, cited within this article, from these additional sources.  ShoesssS Talk 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what the main argument for deletion here is (whether the sources don't qualify as third-party sources or if they are not reliable) but, according to WP:RS, a reliable source is one whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I think there may be disagreement over whether or not the authors of the Watchtower are trustworthy or authoritative in the field of medicine but I would really hope that their trustworthyness or authority are not questioned when it comes to the religious doctrine of the Witnesses. If not the Watchtower, who would we consider the ultimate authority on that? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My claim is that the Wathtower, Awake!, etc are not third party, and thus are not a suitable basis for an article. They are only suitable for verifying or clarifying claims made by third party sources. I will drop the whole thing if either of you post the URL to a reliable, third party source that addresses the subject directly in detail right here. Not a search where I have to find the source myself, not a passing mention, not an opinionated blog post, but something that could be used as the basis for a quality article. --Explodicle (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump ahead SWik78 Here you go Explodicle      . ShoesssS Talk 14:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that's what I asked for. It'll be hard to make a neutral article out of that, but it's at least an indication of notability. As promised, I'm withdrawing the nomination for deletion, and now think we should merge to Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Once that section is well-referenced, I think it has the potential to be its own quality article. --Explodicle (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The Watchtower and Awake! are most definitely third party sources. Issues of reliablity and self-publication notwithstanding, those two publications are separate from material existing on Wikipedia (1st party), they are not original research by the author (2nd party), rather they are separate from both of those parties and, thus, constitute the 3rd party. I think you may have made a very fundamental mistake in your reasoning for the unsuitability of the sources in question. "Third-party" and "reliable" do not mean the same thing, hence WP:RS specifically mentions both terms in its description. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you think something written, published, and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses is seperate from them is now moot, as Shoessss has fulfilled my request. --Explodicle (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, good article topic, enough info to be a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2008 (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.