Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Nobody supports deleteion. The debate is between redirect, merge or keep; and that is a discussion to be had on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are three issues. (1) Every statement is based on primary sources. The Watch Tower Society is a reasonable source on information on its own doctrines, but the issue here is the lack of secondary sources that demonstrate notability to the extent that the subject warrants a separate article. The relevant information here has already been merged with the Jehovah's Witness beliefs article uner the "Salvation" subheading.

(2) Additionally, the second paragraph of "The anointed" section, which constitutes almost half that section, drifts into a discussion about the Governing Body’s perceived opinion towards the validity of the claim of some that they are anointed. The statement that the Governing Body "cast doubt on other members’ claims of being anointed" is an interpretation, and therefore arguably a synthesis of opinion. (3) The "Jonadabs" section is also irrelevant in an article that otherwise has no claim to portray the history of the salvation doctrine. Those three factors, particularly the fact that the relevant statements of notability about the salvation doctrine are sufficiently covered at the "Beliefs" article, combine to make this article redundant. BlackCab (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and Redirect Per nominator, notability for the specific topic does not seem to have been established from reliable secondary sources. Add subheadings for Anointed and Other sheep under Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs.
 * Note: The statement about 'casting doubt' has not been present in the article for over two weeks, however the principle is supported by the cited source. However, deletion of the article will rescind that point anyway.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see that there is anything left to merge, and barely a need for a redirect. BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is deleted, a redirect should be put in place, even if temporarily, until all articles that link to it are updated.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that deleting it as a redundant article is justified because it has been substantially re-written when it was merged into   .  I am however, not sure entirely that the article is notable enough as a stand alone subject to justify existence, still I don't feel that it is necessary to " jump the gun" and quickly delete the article, I suggest allowing a significant amount of time, at least two weeks, for interested parties to give input into the matter.  Willietell (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redundancy isn't listed as a rationale for deleting the article. In any case, it seems that you are in support of redirecting? (Pending further responses from other editors.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no need for further time to improve the article. I gave notice two and a half weeks ago here that I was contemplating proposing the article for deletion. Nothing much has changed since then. The article is poorly sourced; has little indication of notability, or sufficient detail, to warrant a standalone page; and is basically redundant. BlackCab (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to deleting it, because I don't think, as a stand alone topic, that it is particularly notable. I do however, like certain aspects of the page, which I would like to see retained in the merger if the page were to be deleted.  I don't think that allowing a couple of additional weeks for input from interested parties is all that much to ask though, as two weeks isn't the end of the world, so to speak.  Additionally, the article only became redundant when a Salvation section was written into Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs, and third, 37 references to support 9 paragraphs is not inadequately sourced, if your statement is instead, that you don't care much for the reference material, that is a personal matter to which I have little concern. Willietell (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of the 37 references, zero are from secondary sources. Please read WP:PRIMARY.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. It's probably best for the reader to keep their basic beliefs on one page. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to split this off on it's own, given that it's all primary sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, though I don't entirely agree with the nominator's stated reasons... I believe the topic is notable, and I'm untroubled at the article's reliance on Watch Tower references, and I believe any weaknesses in the article's discussion of "the anointed" and/or "the Jonadabs" could have been addressed without deletion and redirect. The fact remains that the first AfD nomination failed because the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article did not yet exist. So, while this topic is notable and even particularly notable among JW beliefs, this topic is now adequately discussed as a section within the more-encompassing article. Frankly, this reminds me of the article at Faithful and discreet slave, which should probably be made to either redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs or Parable of the Faithful Servant.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (For similar reasons to those of the nominator for this article, I agree that Faithful and discreet slave should be redirected to a summary at Parable of the Faithful Servant.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion page is not the place to raise or express opinions on a proposal for a different page. BlackCab (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is certainly plenty of discussion of these concepts in unaffiliated literature, e.g. A People for His Name: A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and an Evaluation, Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave, and Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly notable. -- 202.124.73.170 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.73.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The subject is certainly notable and is adequately covered in the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article. The question is whether there is sufficient detail, supported by secondary sources, to warrant a separate article. At the moment there is not. BlackCab (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the editor's supposed 'question whether there is sufficient detail supported by secondary sources', because nearly every phrase in the current article likely could be sourced to one or more among a variety of secondary (non-JW, non-Watchtower) references. Furthermore, the article is of sufficient length that length per se is not a particular concern (see WP:LENGTH). Rather, I believe that the current article's topic is better-discussed within the context of other 'JW beliefs' rather than as a standalone topic.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Jeffro77 It is illogical to pick a subject that will knowingly have a very limited number of available secondary sources, write the article, and then complain that it doesn't need to exist due to the lack of secondary source material. This is a situation where one might point out that "you knew this going in, so don't rehash it now".  Additionally, primary sources are really the best available and most authoritative sources in existence when it comes to a topic related to the beliefs of any particular group, for no one knows better what a group truly believes more than that group themselves.   Therefore, to say that a lack of secondary sources diminishes the article somehow really holds little water and is without merit.  Having said that, I stand behind my earlier position that I am not entirely sure that the article, as a stand alone subject, merits existence, and shouldn't be incorporated in whole or part into either the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, or into the Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs page.  I would likely normally lean towards the Belief's page, but you understand my reservations there as I feel that particular page is abundant with POV spin and smear and has serious WP:NPOV issues as I have already made clear my position and that this trend might continue with regards to any added section relating to a merger with this page.   Willietell (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. So basically, you're saying, Well, yes, I kind of agree that the article should be incorporated into the Beliefs article, but it's not going to stop me attacking your motives first. Sigh. Please stick to the point.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Willietell, please read WP:N, which states: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." A decision on inclusion in Wikipedia is subject to measurable standards of notability, not a personal conviction that it's a worthy subject. Still, you have at least expressed your view that you doubt that it's worth a standalone article. BlackCab (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is, or has the potential to be as notable as Salvation in Catholicism.  The concerns about secondary sources are pendantry in the extreme, and a distortion of the intent of WP:Primary.  As Willie said, we have to consider the reasons for wanting secondary sources, and they don't apply to this article, as long as we don't start putting judgements in the article about whether the beliefs are true. For instance it says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source", and of course none of those belong in this article.  The only relevant question for this article is 'Do they believe it?', and secondary sources are largely irrelevant to this question... there are no individual claims in the article, supported by primary sources, that could possibly be challenged by a reasonable person, because the article is about what they believe. --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename to Jehovah's Witnesses' view of salvation. Ideally, the title should be cognate with Salvation in Catholicism, but I do not think there is a satisfactory "-ism" noun.  Merger back to the parent article is inappropriate.  That is why we have a "main" template.  Merger would unbalance the parent article.  (I am not a Witness).  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: And it doesn't bother you that even after the original AfD proposal almost four years ago, the article still contains no secondary sources? I'd suggest the material is comfortably and adequately contained in Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs; splitting off as a separate article was premature. Saving this article guarantees it will remain as a poorly-written article with an absence of secondary sources to indicate notability. BlackCab (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2012 (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.