Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses teaching programs


 * 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   delete. The "keep" arguments are notably weak. It is not in dispute that this article about education programs by a religious organization is sourced essentially only to publications by the religious organization itself. Policy provides at WP:PRIMARY that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided", and at WP:V: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". The "keep" opinions mostly ignore these policy requirements, or even directly contradict them, such as in the opinions by Willietell ("Considering the topic, the absence of secondary sources references is not unexpected and is therefore not of major concern") or by Sue Rangell ("Normal sourcing is not really applicable as it is a widley known group"), These opinions, which are incompatible with core policies, are accordingly discounted when establishing consensus.  Sandstein  10:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses teaching programs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article relies almost entirely on primary sources and there is very little to suggest that most of the listed 'JW teaching programs' have any notability at all. There is only passing comment in secondary sources for the few that are mentioned at all. Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article was originally created by me, as a concession to User:AuthorityTam following discussion at Talk:Kingdom Hall of Jehovah%27s Witnesses. I noted from the outset that there were notability issues. See also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses teaching programs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article seems fine to me although it would be improved with further independent sources. The spinout from Kingdom Hall was a good idea. Notability is to be considered for the subject as a whole and we are not concerned with whether individual programs are separately notable. A good number of the affiliated sources are quoting secondary sources. I am hardly seeing any primary sources at all (a primary source would be some actual teaching material). I have no knowledge of the subject (having got here merely by spotting this AfD) and the article gives a particularly useful introduction and as such is encyclopedic. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fewer than 10 of the sources are secondary. Materials published by the Watch Tower Society are primary sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Suggest reviewing WP:PSTS. Additional independent secondary sources would be an advantage. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources provided establish the notability of the topic, which really shouldn't be in question since we are talking about the activity of thousands of people. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources provided are almost entirely made up of the group talking about itself. The notability of the group is not in question, but the internal 'programs' have very little significance outside the group. Only three small sections of the article have any secondary sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The topic could be relevant, as it, or at least elements from it, is described in scholary secondary sources (Holden, Ringnes and others). The article like it is now, do have a slightly promoting style, with an inside POW when it comes to the topic. It looks like a clean-up combined with a merge could be an option here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no particular reason for the deletion of this article, any issues with the article are minor at worst and the article is encyclopedic. Considering the topic, the absence of secondary sources references is not unexpected and is therefore not of major concern.  The article is beneficial to a reader seeking information on the particular subject and should therefore be kept. Willietell (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be nice to hear the views of additional editors not previously involved with the subject.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per nom. Many large denominations have large "sunday schools" or "train the trainer" programs - but rarely are the educational programs notable.  The article is essentially all primary sources or non-independent secondary sources.  In some fields, such as one-hit musical bans, that may be all we have, but for religious organizations, I hope we could do better. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I was going to close this, but after sifting through the references I find myself quite torn and believe this could benefit from further discussion. Some sections (such as Pioneer Service School and the Kingdom Ministry School) have independent referencing, but most of it is sourced only to JW primary sources (or where there are secondary sources, for example Hospital Information Service, the inependent sources verify nothing about the program itself) and is of dubious notability.  This would be an easy keep decision if the article was cut back to only those programs covered in-depth by independent sources, but as it stands a greater consensus is needed which may conceivably be delete—notability is not inherited by tne parent of notable daughter programs, nor by her sisters.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Spinning Spark  23:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per almost everyone above. Lets not get into wiki-lawyering. It's notable simply because it has so many involved in it. Notability isn't really even an issue. Normal sourcing is not really applicable as it is a widley known group. Regular sourcing is only required to prove notability or when notability might be challenged. I doubt if there are many who have not heard of, or who aren't familiar with, Jehova's Witnesses, or their recruiting and teaching programs. Therefore notability is obvious. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The notability of the group is not in question, and the discussion is not about the main article. The other part of the claim that there are not many who haven't heard of their teaching programs is dubious, as they are in-house programs, many of which aren't even available to most JWs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. The JW's evangelizing, recruiting, and missionary programs are (in)famous and certainly notable. However, this article is about their in-house, Sunday school type, or leadership development programs, which are clearly NN. If somebody could show that JW has, much like the LDS, a higher leadership development program, then it would be notable. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - based on lack of reliable secondary sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Alternately, I could see including the significant independent reliably sourced information to Sunday school or similar, possibly even leaving a redirect behind. I note that many of the "keep" comments above seem to my eyes to not address matters of policies or guidelines, and believe that might be taken into account at closing. I also note that, in general, I probably would agree that several similar entities of other major Christian groups might very easily be notable. This would be I think in large part because those groups, like the Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, etc., do not share the JW's apparent aversion to independent media coverage, and are much more frequently and thoroughly discussed in independent reliable sources, and even often in the local or regional publications of those faiths, which often have a degree of independence from the church itself. Unfortunately, this group's mild aversion to independent reliable sources is a problem for many subjects regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular. Having myself created the list of articles to be found in so far as I know the only independent reference source on the JWs, the Chryssides book whose articles are listed at WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles, I don't even see this topic included in it. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge After reading the article and taking a look at the sources, I have to agree with the points raised by those who voice concerns of notability. I venture to say that very few have heard of their teaching programs. Many are aware of a group known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" most of them know about their door to door preaching, several of them know about their position on blood transfusions and saluting the Flag, few know about their political neutrality, and only a minority know anything else about them. Thus, outside of the Watchtower sources, very little can be said about these teaching programs. The few and sparse none-Watchtower sources used mostly seem to mention information as a tangent. I think there's enough for this subject to be part of a broader article, but not enough for it to form its own article. My concerns are also over the use of "Wikipedia's voice." Instead of attributing self published claims (that is things that the Watchtower claims about itself) it states it as if the source where neutral third parties. If this was simply describing beliefs, I wouldn't have an issue with it. This article seems more like a promotional "look at what we do and how awesome we are," type page and not "This is what they believe and do" type page. Fordx12 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonable split. The individual organizations need not be notable to justify the article--if they were, we'd have separate articles on all of them. Related sources are sufficient for the details of the programs. . The suggested redirect to Sunday school is by far too general--if it were merged, it would have to be into the article for the denomination.  DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 8 December 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.