Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust
Content should be merged with Jehovah's Witness. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This could possibly be up-merged into the Jehovah's Witness article (as it could equally into the Holocaust article), but that's a matter of editing discretion rather than VfD, as this topic clearly has notability on its own.  Personally I don't think such a merger would be a good idea though, as it's a topic deserving some length; but again I don't really think this is a VfD matter.--Pharos 09:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The JW article is already long enough~(and badly organized), and this is a notable topic. Uppland 09:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable enough for its own article -CunningLinguist 12:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it should be re-worked into an article about persecution of JW: part of the text, the last paragraph in particular, are not about the Holocaust per se. - Ar 15:19, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles on different topics pertaining to The Holocaust are almost always notable and encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 16:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The JW article is frickin' huge. Maybe have a summary of it there, liking to the JW & the Holocaust article? --Edward Wakelin 17:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand. I've added the interwiki link to de:Zeugen Jehovas im Nationalsozialismus where a more extensive article is available. --Pjacobi 17:54, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Keep Anyone feel up to making the above link available in English? :)  Duffer 13:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main JW article is constantly a subject of edit wars (big surprise), and this probably deserves a seperate article. --Scimitar 15:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also, Wikipedians should be severely reprimanded for putting pages on VfD wen they think they should be merged. &mdash; Phil Welch 01:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .