Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Watch Tower Society publications


 * 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Watch Tower Society publications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been given some latitude because of the effort that has gone into compiling it. However, Wikipedia is not a directory, the listed entries are not for the purpose of linking to other articles, and the article is not based on any secondary sources. Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure it's a useful list, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, just as any non-selective list of all books from any other publisher would most likely be. I'd support any efforts to move this somewhere else if there's another wiki where it could go. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list in the context of what makes lists appropriate and useful on wikipedia. Entries do link to other articles and I'm not sure that more won't. Claims that it "fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY" need to point to which of the inappropriate categories it falls into, it doesn't appear to me to meat any of them.  Article could be improved by telescoping it down to the series of publications (rather than listing e.g. each tract in a series), which are more likely to meet notability and have articles written about them --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article contains links to only three articles about publications specific to JWs (and one that is specific to the Bible Student movement), in addition to a few Bible translations not unique to JWs. As such, it is not especially useful as a resource for that purpose.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Keep with a change or two I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not. As for the former issue, could we not turn this page from PURELY JW publications to a list of all publications specifically about/by JW's? Dr. Knox's publications (she has at least three that I know of), Penton's, Franz's, scholarly articles written by others etc could all be listed here. If there is already an article with that information, then I propose moving this one into that one. Vyselink (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Years ago, the article started out as a hodge-podge of publications about JWs and publications of JWs. It was terrible, and considerably worse than the current state of affairs. Additionally, the current article title would not be suitable for a list of publications about JWs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But my primary point is still valid. I agree with User:Samuel J. Howard's assertion that WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply here, and restate my own personal assertion that the list significantly contributes to the list topic, especially given the Witness habit of discarding older publications as noted by Dr. Knox. As a PhD candidate whose research is the JW's, this list was very useful for determining what publications I did not have or that might be relevant to my studies. Vyselink (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really convinced that your own use of the list as a directory constitutes a compelling argument that WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, fair enough, I merely used my own experience as an example. You have stated that "I'm not aware of any precedent necessitating an exhaustive list of everything published by a particular publishing house", but this is misleading. The JW's are not merely a "publishing house", besides the fact that they don't publish anything but their own work, but are a religion who has used publishing in an unprecedented fashion to preach. Their publishing's are (I would argue) as important, if not more so, than their door-to-door preaching work, and have been since their inception. They are therefore not simply a "publishing house", but a highly organized organization that relies on their publishing's in order to promote their beliefs. While the article need not include EVERYTHING that the JW's have published, deleting this list wholesale would be a phenomenal loss of information. Vyselink (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not about what JWs have published. It is about what has been published by the Watch Tower Society, which has been around for several decades longer than Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that the publishing company is associated with a religious denomination does not confer any special privilege on the publishing company for the purposes of an article, regardless of the measure of success the religious entity as had as a result of its close association with a publishing firm (and it certainly is not appropriate for Wikipedia to promote the Society's publications on that basis). Discussion of how the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses have benefitted from the use of a publishing corporation belongs in articles such as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine (where supported by suitable sources), but does not necessitate a separate list of works.
 * Whether it would be a 'loss of information' is not the issue. The issue is whether that information is appropriate for Wikipedia. I have put a bit of effort into improving the list myself, but the amount of effort that goes into an article also is not what determines whether it is suitable to retain. The full list of publications by the Watch Tower Society is available in the Watchtower Publications Index, which is available on the publisher's website.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Jeffro, I am aware of the difference between the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (among the other legal corporations it uses) and the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" officially created in 1931, but I use JW as a shorthand while typing because I'm pretty sure you'll get it and it's faster. The passive aggressive mentioning of it here and at other places is getting a little old. It's a talk page, not the article.
 * I disagree with your assertion that the publishing company is "associated" with the religious denomination. It is part and parcel of it (indeed, to the point that, as the religion is no longer ecclesia based, it would probably not survive in its present form without the legal corporations and vice-versa), as evidenced by: the fact that until 2000 members of the Governing Body were in direct control of the Society's legal corporations, and since then still have de facto control, even if they do not actually sit on the board and do not occupy other executive positions; the people who do sit on the boards and occupy executive positions are all baptized members of the faith; the fact that all of the workers are volunteers of the religious order known since 1931 as Jehovah's Witnesses; and the voting, stockholding members are all "'mature, active and faithful' male Jehovah's Witnesses".
 * I also disagree that this article is promotional in nature (unlike Jehovah's Witnesses publications, which I agree should be talked about), anymore than the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is promotional for the MLB HOF. (Incidentally, that list has very few non-HOF sources, and your point that the list is available elsewhere is irrelevant, as so is the MLB HOF list, and I don't see anyone adding an "AFD" tag there). There is no "this list is all you'll ever need, join the JW's" tone to it. It is what it says it is, a list of the publications of a religion whose primary (almost sole) method of proselytizing is publication based. It makes no sense to me to talk about how important the publications are to an organization (religious or otherwise) and then not to have at least some sort of coherent list to accompany it. In fact, WP:LISTPURP specifically has as one of its main purposes for lists "Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Again, all of this, in my opinion, satisfies WP:NOTDIRECTORY in so far as it meets the criteria of "having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". Does it need work? Yes. Should it be deleted? No. Vyselink (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "WT" would certainly serve as a more accurate shorthand for the corporation than "JW", especially when discussing both distinct entities. If you imagine I was being 'passive aggressive', I can't do anything about that.
 * The manner in which the publishing corporation has been intertwined with the two religious denominations has indeed been advantageous for the religious denominations associated with it at different times, and I did not mean to suggest that the degree of association is not very close. But in the end, the Watch Tower Society is the corporation that actually publishes the literature, regardless of who its members may be. (The term "legal corporation" is misleading JW jargon in this context; the term "legal corporation" usually refers to a corporation related to law; similarly, the JW jargon "legal instrument" is inaccurate, as that term actually refers to a type of document). The notion that the denomination Jehovah's Witnesses 'may not survive' without the Watch Tower Society is basically the same as the reason the denomination has had the measure of success that it has (particularly with the advantage of tax-free status), but that does not make the denomination synonymous with the corporation. And the hierarchical polity of Jehovah's Witnesses&mdash;though quite legalistic&mdash;is still basically analogous to that of other Adventist groups, with no authority formally vested in the Watch Tower Society (ever since Russell, even though authority was frequently implied).
 * I don't really see how the Baseball Hall of Fame is remotely similar to literature for a religious denomination that is specifically used for proselytising and recruiting. The HoF article is clearly different to this one, as its primary function is obviously as an index for linking to related articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally useful in these discussions.
 * The list provides no information about the various publications, it is not particularly useful for linking to other articles, and it's not clear what amount of work would make the list useful other than as a directory.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is a well-organised list that would appear to be acceptable as an article per WP:LIST and WP:WORKS. The article has encyclopaedic worth, compared with Jehovah's Witnesses publications, which is promotional in tone. There is already an article, Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses, that provides information as suggested by Vyselink. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 14:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability criteria for lists is that "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That criteria does not appear to have been met in this case.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding concerns about the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications, I started a section at the article's Talk page recently, and will raise an AfD in the next couple of weeks if suitable improvements are not made there.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CSC #2, WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Also WP:OUTCOMES: "Lists are more likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does an exhaustive list of publications associated with a minor religious denomination really "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes"? It only fulfils a promotional purpose so far as information. With only four linked publications (in addition to some Bible translations that did not originate with the publisher), and a paucity of notability suggesting against extras, it certainly doesn't fulfil a navigational purpose. And it isn't clear what 'development' would result from the list.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Replying to Jeffro77, throughout its history the Watch Tower Society has been a prodigious publisher of books, pamphlets, tracts and magazines, most of which have been publicly distributed and all of which have been, effectively, required reading of adherents of the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. Those books chart the evolution of the religion's doctrines and dogmatic assertions and create a snapshot of those doctrines at the point of publication. Most have also been laboriously "studied" by adherents, and contain the beliefs they were individually required to hold at the time of publication. Documenting those publications as a topical and chronological list is of encyclopedic value and a worthwhile appendix to articles on the JWs and their beliefs and practices. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 12:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any precedent necessitating an exhaustive list of everything published by a particular publishing house. The importance of the publisher's literature to the members of the religion with which the publishing house is associated does not convey external notability on the literature. The list provides no information about how the books "chart the evolution of the religion's doctrines", which is already handled better at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is potentially a useful article, as it includes old works, some of which are now disavowed by the Watchtower Society. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Being 'disavowed by the Watchtower Society' doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2015 (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.