Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jw.org


 * 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 redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jw.org

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I had originally tagged db-web and nom (who is also the creator of the article) changed it to an AFD but he failed to finish the AFD process. It is about a non-notable website, the information within the article is already covered in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article and no new information is added so it is redundant. It also looks more like advertising for the website than informational at this time as well. Would also include JW.org redirect. Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who nominated it for AfD, and (for the sake of full-disclosure) also created the article. While I am always open to comments from the community, I thought speedy deletion of the article was hasty considering the size of the org and the distribution of the periodical in question, which is published in more languages than any periodical by a mile. I think its safe to say it doesn't read like spam. I think the biggest strike against it is it newness, since it was relaunched on the first. However, it is a new media presentation for the organization, which is why I thought it might merit a separate article, much like specific books for the organization (and others for that matter) have their own articles. Regardless, here it is in AfD.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As to size of organization, please read WP:BIG. I think it would maybe qualify as a redirect just as you did Watchtower.org, but as of now, the website (as a standalone website) doesn't meet notability.  *New* websites are the defacto definition of what db-web speedy was designed for.  I don't begrudge you for pulling the speedy tag, although that is clearly against policy for an article creator to pull a speedy tag.  You should have used the  tag.  You should also have FINISHED the AFD process, which the failure of may look like someone trying to work around the system.  I am taking you actions in good faith, but you see that they were really contrary to policy.  Regardless, the site fails notability.  I wouldn't object it was redirected to Jehovah's Witness, which is the only thing that makes the site have any potential notability anyway.  Pharmboy (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for inputs and I don't contest any failure of this AfD, but I did want to at least have my actions represented in the light of what transpired. (1) I didn't put a holdon tag on it because it was already deleted by the time I realized it was being nominated for speedy.  I don't think this was a violation of policy to subsequently bring it here, but if it is, fair enough. (2) I did attempt to complete the AfD, but while I was typing up my reason, my browser crashed.  By the time I was back up and running, someone had already finished it.  That is why I added my comments below his/hers above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. It is nowadays presumed that an organization will have a website, so mere existence of same is not notable. Clearly separate notability would need to be demonstrated. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. Most organizations have websites now. The fact that it is a new website as mentioned above is the definition of db-web. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, although it might possibly be notable for being one of the very very very very last major organizations to get a working website. Nah, redirect.   Keeper   |   76  22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:It already has a website, several.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As the AFD nom, I have no problem with it (and the other redirect) instead being redirected to Jehovah's Witnesses, as the site is legit, just not notable by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2008 (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.