Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonadabs


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, although should possibly be merged with Jehovah's Witnesses (mergeto and mergefrom have been applied to the articles in question). GarrettTalk 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Jonadabs
I have put Template:Unreferenced on this article a couple of times and user User:Melissadolbeer has removed it adding sites that do not mention the word Jonadabs. I now feel that a VfD will be the best way to resolve this issue because if no one can cite sources or any reference to the reality of this then it should go. I do wish that this process will reveal information that I have yet to find about the group, but only time will tell. gren 04:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As best I can surmise from google hits and this very useful tool Jonabad are descrbed as "other sheep" and "persons of goodwill". It does not really describe them as a movement than I can see. It does relate them to Jehovah's witnesses but there is no source that I can find that seems to discuss more about them as a cohesive entity. I am not exactly sure what to make of this but so far what we have is not notably referenced. gren 05:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - unless further sources proving the legitimacy of this article are found. gren 04:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jehovah's Witness article and redirect there -- I would like to thank and commend Zora for making sense out of the article, I don't think it deserves to be separate (in fact, I think it needs the JW context) -- lots of vote changing :) gren 02:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems notable to me... (of course, I could be, and often am, wrong) -mysekurity 04:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I see nothing wrong with the article, and it might prove useful to those researching the topic. Of course, I can be easily swayed if proved to be wrong, so maybe I shouldn't even vote. However, I think this does need to be expanded or proven its worthiness. I'm going to go for a weak keep now, but it can easily become a delete -mysekurity 05:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete thanks to persuasion by Gren. It doesn't seem too notable, but as Vader sugguests, it might be useful. I'm still having doubts, but I'm going to go with a weak delete for now. -mysekurity 05:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC) (hopefully last time)
 * Keep. Noteworthy. Doesn't even need expansion. DarthVader 05:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (weak). Also changed mind due to persuasion by Gren. The article is fine but it currently doesn't have a good source. Hopefully sources will be found. DarthVader 05:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- here are sources.  The article, however, does not convey the sense of the word at all well. I can't figure out if it's written by a JW who's so far into that world that he/she/it seems dotty, or if it's a subtle parody. Needs complete rewriting. Zora 06:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I stayed up late last night and rewrote it. I think it makes more sense now. Jonadabs are referenced in the main Jehovah's Witness article. It might work to fold my version into the JW article, if people don't feel that the term is common enough to warrant its own article. I would appreciate it if those of you who voted to Delete could look at the article again. Zora 23:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't vote because it is too borderline. I don't see any problem with it being its own article, but I guess that it will be easy enough to add to the JW article if this article is deleted. DarthVader 00:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable minor maybe-religious possibly-a-group. Unless something drastic is done to demonstrate encyclopedic note (and much better verifiability of this particular group and its behvaiours) in the next 5 days. -Splash 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. Merge with Jehovah's Witnesses. Dcarrano 22:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jehovah's Witnesses and re-direct there. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jehovah's Witnesses . Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jehovah's Witnesses. However, I'd personally like to see more legitimate sources before that happens. If it is real, a merge is appropriate. --FreelanceWizard 10:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, you may be interested in similar behaviour by Melissadolbeer discussed at Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer.     22:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge if verifiable. Otherwise Delete --Briangotts (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge if verifiable. Otherwise Delete --K. 09:27, 23 July 2005 (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.