Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing


 * 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 Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Insufficient third-party sources. Individual publications fail notability guideline for books. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses Jeffro 77  (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an evangelical resource for any religion. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I can appreciate Guy's concerns, I believe that one can write an encyclopedic article about evangelism in an impartial, non-evangelical tone. Although this is one of the smaller denominations (7 million people), it is, like the Mormons, one where the members are expected to be actively evangelical.  For those who have ever seen the Land Shark skits from the original Saturday Night Live, I'm not ready to club the guy bringing "The Watchtower" to the door. Mandsford 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure you can, but it would need to be something other than a directory and sourced from independent sources. Which this isn't. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about evangelism, it's about specific books a particular religious group uses, with a lack of third-party sources, and I'm not aware of similar articles about publications used by other religious groups. This series of articles was originally created as a concession in lieu of separate articles about various non-notable JW literature. It is sufficient to include an overview of JW literature at the existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just started looking for third-party references. I've found a couple already for "What Does the Bible Teach?" including "Winning the Witnesses" by Daniel Rodriquez. I have encountered opposition on other Jehovah's Witnesses pages when trying to delete unreferenced material, or decrease material based primarily on Watchtower Society (self-published) literature. If people were willing to make changes to the page, I think it could be saved. Mandmelon (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, it is sufficient to include an overview of JW literature at Jehovah's Witnesses publications, which can include any of the information to which you refer.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This again? A similar 2009 AfD by the same nominator was rejected by an administrator, and this one should be rejected also.


 * The result of the 'similar' AfD was a redirection, not a rejected deletion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witnesses should keep in mind that JWs release at least three or four new publications every year, and nearly every title has an initial run of several million. While those titles are not necessarily notable for Wikipedia's purposes, this article doesn't seek to discuss all those titles (the majority of those titles can properly be relegated to a mere list or a general discussion). These few titles (which are each discussed in a section of this article) are significantly more notable; each of these books has in turn been the primary bible study textbook of JWs (until its successor title was released). Every one of the titles has had a printing of nearly or in excess of a HUNDRED-MILLION copies (except 1946's "Let God Be True"). In recent years these textbooks are distributed at no cost rather than "sold", but "The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life" is universally recognized as an all-time top-ten best-seller right behind the Book of Mormon. See List of best-selling books.

Previous to the creation of this particular article, a couple of these notable publications of Jehovah's Witnesses each had an individual article. Among them: Ironically, Jeffro77, the editor who here nominates this article for deletion, actually CREATED this article, except with the title "Jehovah's Witnesses publications for proselytizing".
 * What Does the Bible Really Teach?. (130 million in print)
 * The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life. (107 million "sold")
 * After AuthorityTam requested help with creating the article, I created it as a favour because there had been recent tension in editing. I now know that it is not worth doing AuthorityTam any favours.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, the article material at "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" (the article since 2007 about JW's primary bible study textbook, a notable publication) was used by Jeffro77 to anchor his moments-earlier-created article Jehovah's Witnesses publications for proselytizing.. At the same time (about 05:20, 10 May 2009), Jeffro77, the above AfD nominator, also effectively "moved" the article material from "The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life" (about JW's earlier primary bible study textbook, a notable publication) to this same article which he now seeks to delete.
 * Of the original articles prior to consolidation, neither had any third party references, though The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life cited a JW publication that cited an entry in the Guiness Book of Records. I have no concerns about adding any notable information about that publication to Jehovah's Witnesses publications.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Jeffro77 has bided his time for a year, at first merely diluting notable titles alongside others, but now relaunching his effort to delete detailed discussion of notable JW book titles, in this case books which each have a printing approaching or exceeding a HUNDRED-MILLION. Doesn't it seem remarkably odd to shoot directly for deletion without giving or a similar template even a moment to work? Editors should be assured that it would be time-consuming but boringly straightforward to collect the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of additional references showing the notability of these titles. Again, odd that an AfD is the first choice of an experienced editor such as Jeffro77. Odd for an editor to try and delete an article he himself had created a year earlier.
 * I created the article at AuthorityTam's suggestion as a concession, but remained concerned about notability. In response to my acknowledgment of creating the articles at his suggestion, he deleted my comment which he considered to be "obsolete", though he retains most Talk comments back to 2008.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro77 is himself a former Jehovah's Witnesses, having discussed his "firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion, as well as his "close contact" and his claimed personal observations, such as how "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored". Regarding JW publications and JWs themselves, Jeffro77 has claimed that they evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic", and "morally bereft". Before being rejected by an administrator, Jeffro's 2009 AfD was only seconded by one other editor, BlackCab aka LTSally, a self-described "ex-JW" editor who had previously declared himself "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous" Jehovah's Witnesses.


 * AuthorityTam here makes various false or misleading claims about my edits:
 * A false statement implying "firsthand experience with expulsion from the religion", in reference to a diff in which I referred to the existence of firsthand experiences, which I did not claim as my own. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
 * A reference to my "close contact" with JWs, wherein I indicate that I happen to know JWs (through relatives, though it's no ones business), which AuthorityTam seeks to use in association with the imagined admission of 'expulsion'. (edit was 4 years ago)
 * A misused reference to 'evading taxes' in reference to the Watch Tower Society's change from the sale of literature by the organisation to avoid sales tax imposed on literature following a US Supreme Court case (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1374/argument, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=493&invol=378) involving Jimmy Swaggart, which is not at all a statement that individual JW members 'evade taxes' at all. (edit was nearly 3.5 years ago)
 * A statement about inflating statistics of 'preaching', based on observation and reports from others. (edit was 4 years ago)
 * An opinion about how JWs must acquiesce to doctrines they don't necessarily agree with. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
 * Various opinions about JW policies based on observation and reports from others (edits from 4 and 4.5 years ago)
 * An expression of disdain about a JW article that suggested it was unfortunate that "apostate" JWs could not be killed by their family members (edit was 4.5 years ago) (Actual quote from JW source "We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy ... The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.")
 * Put simply, AuthorityTam is quick to indicate (quite irrelevantly) that I don't agree with everything JWs say and do in order to sidestep the issue of whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. AuthorityTam is very quiet here about many occasions on which I argued strenuously against claims that JWs are not Christian, and many other issues - unlike AuthorityTam, I don't have time at the moment to leisurely trawl through edit histories - see JW Talk history pages and history pages of related articles if desired.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors and administrators who are less directly affected by Jehovah's Witnesses should reject the efforts of a former JW (such as Jeffro77) to delete this article, as administrators have rejected similar AfD's in the past for titles such as "Shining as Illuminators in the World". and "Aid to Bible Understanding". The fact is that Wikipedia is well-served by a detailed discussion of a handful of individually-notable but related publications. This discussion in this article should be in addition to a mere list or general discussion of the hundreds of other JW titles of lesser notability.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite what AuthorityTam claims above, I did not 'discuss my expulsion from JWs' in the ambiguous statement AuthorityTam misuses above at all; I simply indicated that firsthand experiences exist. Additionally, AuthorityTam's assertion is irrelevant to whether the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
 * Aside from that, when these articles were first created as a concession for existing individual articles for non-notable JW publications, AuthorityTam (the main proponent for keeping the original articles) was warned that there were still notability concerns.
 * As already stated, any notable details about these publications can be indicated at the existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AuthorityTam also claims that I have taken quick action to move for the article's deletion rather than add a template. In reality the article has had a  template seeking third-party references since May 2009.-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is both disturbing and amusing that AuthorityTam has decided to trawl through my Talk page edits from the last 5 years to find 'evidence' that I disagree with certain JW beliefs and policies, and of course AuthorityTam hasn't bothered to dredge up other edits where I have defended the religion where other editors have made false claims. Of course, none of this has any bearing at all on whether this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. As previously stated, anything notable about the JW publications cited should be at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a clear lack of notability. And I am absolutely gobsmacked by the depths of AuthorityTam's venom against another editor for pursuing a standard Wikipedia administrative process. I could never have imagined that an editor could be so petty as to trawl back through more than four years of another editor's history to make a personal denigration of them and try to stitch together evidence of an agenda in an effort to save such shitty, low-grade, nakedly proselytizing articles on publications produced by his religion. My God. BlackCab (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Keep? I think it should be kept since (as has been mentioned already) JW's are known for evangelism and these are their tools for this work. I haven't read this article for a long time or contributed to WP because of the incredible amount of difficulty in reaching agreements with people who want these JW articles to not be (paraphrasing) 'Pro-JW', so you must forgive my lack of knowledge, but if it includes past publications used for the same purpose then it would provide a resource for those who want to know what has been used by JW's. Arguably all our pubs could be put under this title, so it could perhaps be renamed, but I seem to remember that being discussed a long time ago when I was still contributing and this being settled upon, but my memory could be tricking me, there were so many 'arguments' :p George (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most third-party sources citing JW literature are either critical or cite factoids rather than overall discussion of the specific publications themselves. Do you have any issues with moving any notable information to the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications, as I have suggested several times?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have any problems with your recommendation, I think that the most notable books (currently being used) are all that need be described. I believe that 'the brothers' who direct us would rather people read about our pubs at our website anyway. =D George (talk)


 * strong KEEP - The proselytizing of this denomination is of GLOBAL notability, Laws of the land having been changed in landmark cases globally, and I have the exact opposite viewpont of BlackCab. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about publications, not proselytizing. The publications lack external notability. BlackCab (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per BlackCab, this article is about specific publications, which don't have special external notability. The relevant information, including specific about how JW publications are used in the preaching work is already covered at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples of notability in books
Before Jeffro77 interspersed, my comment looked like this.

The threat to delete these notable titles has always seemed awfully close to WP:SNOWBALL, but this AfD hasn't yet been dismissed, so... for a related AfD by this same nominator, I took five minutes and checked just one website: books.google.com for the individual titles. The result was an avalanche of books which demonstrated the notability of those titles; see Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents.

If editors still seriously question the notability of these titles, I can do the same for the titles in this article, and also cite some periodicals next week. This misguided mission of deletion just seems remarkable for its long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So now it's a "mission". You're certainly right about the "strong emotions" here! BlackCab (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As those Google results show, they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability about books, and a simple count of Google search results does not establish notability. Acknowledging that a book exists is not the criteria. Most of the results (of a standard Google search) are references to those works on JW-related web forums, with some Wikipedia mirrors and book stores thrown in. AuthorityTam has previously tried to misuse the Google method (after confusing nouns as modifiers with standard adjectives).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the claim of "long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions"... I expressed concern at the outset about notability, but have allowed a year for citations to be added, for which I am criticized by AuthorityTam. If I had allowed less time, is it likely that AuthorityTam would be less critical?? There are certainly "strong emotions" at play here, but they're not mine.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AuthorityTam refers to an "avalanche" of Google Books results. In actuality, many of the results refer to phrases entirely independent of the JW publication with the same name. Of those results that do mention the actual publications, most are simply passing quotes rather than discussion of a notable publication. Many of the search results are unflattering and it is unlikely that AuthorityTam would like to actually use many of them as sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per all my comments on this page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The titles may be worth mentioning, and their existence is certainly notable enough, but as part of a single list. JW literature garners public attention in general, but this breakdown lacks the third-party coverage sufficient to support separate, categorized, articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk  13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The JW publications article
I have edited Jehovah's Witnesses publications to include all information referenced in third-party sources from this family of articles, with provision to add sections for any information about specific JW publications if they are discussed (rather than merely briefly cited) by notable third-party sources. The article also includes brief mention of other primary JW publications, even though they are not mentioned in third-party sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2010 (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.