Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique


 * 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 merge to Religion in Mozambique. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by some about our policy on inclusion, making much of the keep arguments weak, so there is unquestionably a consensus to delete. Some of the information may be useful and a couple mentioned merge to Religion in Mozambique, thus this seems the most logical outcome based on the discussion. Please notify me or any other admin once the merge is complete, so this article can be deleted. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability. Entire section 'First contact' is a copyright violation from the cited source (translated back into English from Portuguese version but obviously consistent with the English version). Apart from a very brief mention in a news article about a broader subject, the only non-primary source is a Microsoft Word document someone has uploaded in cloud storage. Merge brief details to Religion in Mozambique. Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In case there is any doubt, the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique is not a notable subject is not intended to suggest that either Jehovah's Witnesses or Mozambique are not notable subjects. Jehovah's Witnesses do not make up a significant proportion of the population of Mozambique (0.23%), and Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique do not make up a significant proportion of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide (0.69%).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Proselytizing. Merge, if necessary, a sentence or two (a fact, and therefore not really a merge) to Religion in Mozambique. This article as it stands is POV, employing internal sources, and a familiar story of persecution and perseverance of the Elect. Hithladaeus (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maintain :I did not tell very well known history for anything, but because there are facts that prove the veracity of the story, and following a policy of fundamental here (Wikipedia) is verifiability or reliable sources and do not see where is the fault of this article to be being discussed ... I not only good English as can be noted'm collaborator in Wikipedia in Portuguese and here colaboradoro by interest ... However, one should not use personal reasons for discussions on certain issues, then I suggest the mention of the failure of the article and I do not consider fault what my colleague said to be counting "very well-known story."rgimo (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique are not especially notable either in respect to Mozambique or Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses have had government opposition in various countries, and a section about Mozambique could be added to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments for that purpose (if there are sufficient sources). It does not justify a separate article, and certainly not one that is based only on primary sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I declined a speedy; sections are a copyvio as stated, but not the entire article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Religion in Mozambique: not independently notable as a group. Esquivalience t 03:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a modest denomination. I think that a denomination with 90 congregations in UK or US would be allowed an article.  The fact thast it is in an African country should make no differnence.  Merging with Religon in Mozambique would be liable to unbalance that article, but a plain redirect would be unhelpful as it would not be to a place where there was any content.  Personally I have no time for this sect, but if they have a significnat penetration into a country, an artivle ought to be allowed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it 'is an African country' has nothing to do with anything. The subject is not supported by reliable secondary sources. JWs in Mozambique make up a negligible proportion of people in Mozambique and of JWs worldwide. Also, your example of 'a denomination with 90 congregations in UK or US' isn't even supported by articles under that criteria. The broader subject of JWs generally is very well covered on Wikipedia. Less than a quarter of 1 percent does not constitute "significant penetration into a country".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Religion in Mozambique. The subject isn't notable and notability is a must-have for standalone articles. Article content only has to be verifiable and as such it can be added my suggested target article. AadaamS (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I fail to see any notability. It seems like a very small number of people. The Portuguese article (primarily language of Mozambique) is also suspect - first subsection is "First contact with the truth"!!!  —Мандичка YO
 * The creator and primary author of the Portuguese article is the same person who created the article in English. As you have suggested, the Portuguese version is not neutral. It also most likely incorporates copyright violations, as that article formed the basis for the English article which contains entire sections of translated copyrighted text.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peterkingiron, many articles that are created come from an influential country are approved without any criticism. As already discussed I approve the article as it tells a real fact and we see that their history is real abase sources quoted. Prosuponho that there are many items with a single source, but insentos of criticism ... That's all I could do to make public a history of a religion which is also part of a country not to go into oblivion. But rather that ageração vindora the better ...rgimo (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not delete other editors' comments as you did to my comment that I have restored above. The reason for deleting the article has nothing to do with whether a particular country is "influential".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

on the talk page. If kept, it should have that information.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep --- This is a modest sized denomination in a reasonably well done article. I added
 * JWs in Mozambique are an extremely small proportion of JWs globally (0.69%) or of people in Mozambique (0.23%). The broader topic of Jehovah's Witnesses has very good coverage on Wikipedia.
 * It is not a reasonably well done article. It is based almost entirely on primary sources, including a copyright violation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeffro77, the case here is not the TJ in Mozambique is a much lower propotion from the existing worldwide, but the historical legacy that must be transmitted generation to come. It is you already said that this matter was not so equal coverage of Germany in Hitler time. I agree, you know why? After the war the historians speculated the facts ... As already in Mozambique not to fiqui happy to see the description that DW did. Although that in your view that still does not meet the requirement of secondary reference. What about Your comment has been inadvertently excuse!rgimo (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The supposed 'historical legacy' is not sufficiently indicated in reliable secondary sources. That is the only consideration relevant here. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox for matters that individual editors believe to be important in the absence of suitable sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I see you want to tease me for nothing, Vee this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igrejas_de_Cristo, Tell Me cites secondary sources? Put an end to this discussion is passing the time!rgimo (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying that other stuff exists is not generally useful at these discussions, and there's no reason I should already have been aware of that article. The other article does cite a secondary source, the World Christian Encyclopedia. If the denomination is only found in Mozambique, then the article may be warranted because of its uniqueness there. If the denomination is present in various countries, then an article specific to Mozambique (which it does not appear to be) would probably also be subject to deletion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (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.