Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses reference works


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses reference works

 * – ( 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) 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – There seems to be only book-related sources, but the sources seem to be pretty reliable. It is also a pretty well-written article. It would be very much a pity if the authors wouldn't be allowed to have this article left in the article space, because of the authors times of writing it. For example: If the authors of this article have spent a total of 2 hours on the article, it is the same thing as that the authors have lost a total of 2 hours of their lifes, just because the article got deleted. Also, this article is more than 1 year old, so I think and believe that it is too late to nominate this article. Heymid (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are published by the Watch Tower Society, the publisher of the publications in question. Of the nine non-Watchtower sources, one is an irrelevant link to Wiktionary about usage of the word 'indices', five are passing references to the Watchtower Index, and the remaining three (which contain the only notable statements) each refer to one single source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the primary author, as a concession for separate articles that existed for each of the books previously, and having given a warning that they may not be retained. I don't mind.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Jeffro77: If you were the primary author of the article, and because you nominated this article for deletion by yourself, I would suggest you to put the template in the article, which basically marks the article for speedy deletion in a category on English Wikipedia. Heymid (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the primary editor on this article, however it was adapted from previous articles about each of the individual books, and figured there may still be some contention.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an evangelical resource for any religion. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly, Wikipedia does NOT discriminate against any religion, and we aren't going to start with the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is nothing "evangelical" about the tone of this article, and the subject is not "unencyclopedic" simply because it refers to religion, anymore so than on articles about the literature issued by other religious authorities.  The "Proclaimers book" is probably notable enough  for its own article, and the same could be said about other publications    .  Although I'd prefer this lone article to lots of individual articles about different texts, I'd prefer lots of individual articles to no information at all.  Mandsford 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe this to be discriminatory, can you please indicate similar articles for publications of other religious groups? The reason for deleting isn't because of being "unencyclopedic", but because the subject doesn't have sources indicating it to be "notable".
 * Other publications citing a JW publication to indicate a JW belief isn't the same as discussion of a notable publication. It is sufficient to briefly indicate any notable publications at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Nonsense. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:12, 16 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 is a bona fide reference work coincidentally (or not) published by Jehovah's Witnesses. These few titles are significantly more notable even than most evangelical materials with runs of several million.

Previous to the creation of this particular article, several notable publications of Jehovah's Witnesses each had an individual article. Among them:
 * Reasoning from the Scriptures.
 * Aid to Bible Understanding.
 * Insight on the Scriptures.

Ironically, Jeffro77, the editor who here nominates this article for deletion, actually CREATED this article Jehovah's Witnesses reference works.
 * 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) 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, "Insight on the Scriptures" was an article since February 2005 about a notable print encyclopedia with millions in circulation; that is, until Jeffro77 (who here nominates this article for deletion) consolidated that article's material with other notable titles in May 2009. Similarly, "Reasoning from the Scriptures" was an article since June 2005 about what is perhaps the best-known JW reference work; that is, until Jeffro77 consolidated that second article's material also in May 2009. Even more interesting is "Aid to Bible Understanding", an article since February 2005 about an earlier notable print encyclopedia with millions in circulation. That title had survived an earlier AfD; interestingly, one of those 2005 AfD commenters suggested created an article for Jehovah's Witnesses reference works. Did Jeffro77 know that a previous nomination to delete detailed discussion of Aid to Bible Understanding. had been rejected by an administrator? In any event, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aid_to_Bible_Understanding&action=historysubmit&diff=288808628&oldid=263207870 Jeffro77 is the editor who moved the "Aid..." material from its own article to the new article Jeffro himself had created, also in May 2009.]
 * Of the original articles prior to consolidation, only one, Aid to Bible Understanding, had any third party references. I have no concerns about adding any notable information about that publication to Jehovah's Witnesses publications.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:45, 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 a handful of books which are official reference works of a major religion. 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) 11:50, 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 one's 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) 19:51, 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. Templates weren't added to this article as was done for the 'evangelizing' article. However, it is clear that the same concerns existed for the family of three similar articles.-- 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. No notability. And AuthorityTam's defence of this worthless piece of crap deserves to be struck out on the basis of his extraordinarily venomous personal attack on another editor. This is clearly an editor who is bleeding over the possible deletion of material that does nothing more than hijack Wikipedia for the purposes of promoting publications used by his own religion to make money. Appalling behavior. BlackCab (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Are there any articles similar to this one? The short answer is yes. Catholic Encyclopedia for example. Jehovah's Witnesses are the number two religion in several developing countries and a top ten religion (depending on definition) in some developed countries. They are undoubtedly a high profile religion which people want to investigate. WP as a research resource has an obligation to provide as much relevant information on such a well known religion as can be provided.George (talk)
 * Comparing JW publications with the Catholic Encyclopedia in terms of notability is a bit of a stretch. Even in countries where JWs "are the number two religion", we're still talking about 1% of the population, and less in most countries. By population, they're hardly a "high profile religion", and their high profile relates more to issues of controversy. Though the religion itself is certainly notable, there is little evidence that specific JW publications are so notable that it is necessary to have more than the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications where any notable details can be located. Most third-party sources citing JW literature are either critical or cite factoids rather than overall discussion of the specific publications themselves.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:29, 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)
 * 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 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) 23:47, 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)

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 (I haven't included the Watchtower Index, because... it's an index&mdash;it 'Does exactly what it says on the tin'), 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) 08:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

also serious publications made specifically as references and specifically as encyclopedias should (if they aren't) always be considered notable. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - bias, religious bigotry, and ex-JWs aside, this simple search gives many precedents"the book of...",


 * Keep and Rename to List of Jehovah's Witnesses reference works. This is essentially a list (a bibliography of sorts) that augments the Jehovah's Witnesses publications article.  As such, a bit of rewording in the lead would establish clear inclusion criteria.  Then any descriptive information for each entry would just need proper sourcing to verify what is being said.  Each entry would not necessarily have to be notable enough in its own right for to be included as long as it met inclusion criteria.  A bit of cleanup and renaming will bring this list up to WP:list quickly.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any notable information could be included at Jehovah's Witnesses publications. List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications also already exists. As far as reference works are concerned, there might be slightly more justification for retaining a separate article in comparison to the others of this family of articles.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous comments.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I deleted the tally section as per WP:AFDEQ, as clearly noted. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 03:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge - the article clearly misses notability guidelines as per WP:NBOOK. It even says in the introduction to the article that the books listed have only been distributed to members. None of these books alone are notable, and putting them together doesn't really do much other than make it seem like a WP:SOAP. In fact, now that I am looking even more closely, each book would barely have an entry if not for the sentences describing whether it was paperback or hardcover. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 03:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I changed my opinion to merge after reading the comment below by . — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've already merged information from the family of articles that is cited in third-party publications. In principle, I therefore agree with Merge, but since it's already done, my position remains Delete.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:42, 21 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  12:59, 20 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.