Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The True Faith Jehovah’s Witnesses Association


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The True Faith Jehovah’s Witnesses Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm going to lay out a few points as I build a case for deletion:

1. The main body of Jehovah's Witnesses in Romania, the Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania, already has an article on it written from reliable sources.
 * Comment Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania is a country-specific article about Jehovah's Witnesses proper. I'm not altoghether sure that the Romania-specific article about JWs is warranted because JW activities in Romania are not notable in comparison with a) JW activities in other countries and b) religious groups in Romania; I would therefore support deletion of that article. However... this article is about a group that is not part of Jehovah's Witnesses, but is a separation despite the similar name; that said, see below.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've done a copyedit on the other article about the actual JWs in Romania. It seems relatively well sourced, so it might be appropriate to keep it.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Romania has 18 officially recognized religions, all of which we can assume are notable. It also has several "religious associations", listed here, which have at least 300 members and may or may not be notable. "True Faith" isn't even that; it's merely an "association", of which there are many obscure ones not treated by independent sources, and this brings us no closer to showing notability.

3. If we look at the sources used in this article, they don't seem to rise to the level of independent notability for a stand-alone article or "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as demanded by WP:GNG. There's a link to an official site that doesn't help much. There's a paragraph based on the Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses detailing the Witnesses' persecution under Communism, something already mentioned extensively at Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania. There are a couple of citations of court decisions, which merely confirm the existence of "True Faith", not its notability. There's a link here, but Centers for Apologetics Research hardly seems a reliable, scholarly, peer-reviewed, neutral source. Finally, there is mention of a paper by a Radu Petre. Well, I looked over that paper and it turned out to be far more of a general introduction to the Witnesses than anything specifically about their activities in Romania.

4. Nowhere is the claim of 30,000 members substantiated.

In sum: yes, this group exists; no, there isn't enough significant coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. This is why I suggest deletion. I wouldn't mind a redirect, and if reliable sources turn up, I wouldn't mind mentioning them at Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania (we mention the Pentecostal Dissidents at Pentecostal Union of Romania, without any call for a separate article), but I really see no need for this article at present. - Biruitorul Talk 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the suggestion to briefly mention this group at the other article if the country-specific article of JWs in Romania is to be retained. See comments above.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable. andy (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I did a copyedit of this article, but it is poorly sourced and seems barely notable.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; not all religions, even if they claim tens of thousands of adherents, are notable. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject may well not be notable, but we should discount point 2 of the nomination as a reason for deletion. Governments do not decide what is or is not notable, and, quite frankly, I am shocked that, 20 years on, the Romanian government still thinks that it is its business to say what is or is not a valid religion, and that the nominator appears to agree with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All I meant to say is that, yes, official recognition in this case is likely to imply notability, and lack of recognition is likely to mean a lack of notability. Have a look at the numbers: in 2002, a gigantic 0.4% of the population declared themselves in the "other religion" category - and this was a year before the Witnesses gained recognition, so if one subtracts them, it's likely 0.2% today. Most of these are a smattering of Protestant sects that have received scant coverage in reliable sources.
 * Given that the government pays clergy salaries for officially-recognized religions and confers other financial benefits on them (such as paying teachers to teach these religions in state schools), yes, it's perfectly reasonable to limit the "official" pool. Everyone else (other than, say, destructive cults) is free to worship as they please, either as religious associations or associations, just not to feed at the taxpayer trough while doing so. - Biruitorul Talk 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether a government endorses a particular group is not on its own a valid determinant for whether a group is notable. In some cases (though not necessarily here), the very resistance to the group could make it notable. However, I'm not entirely sure that's the case here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again (did I not say it clearly enough?), recognition is  likely  to indicate notability, without being a hard-and-fast determinant of such. This is particularly so in a democracy bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and which strives to treat all denominations impartially. Naturally, entities like the Chinese house churches, the Bahá'í Faith in Iran and Christianity in Saudi Arabia are notable despite being illegal, but that's not the case here. After all, this group has been legal and fully operational for 20 years, it just doesn't receive government funding. - Biruitorul Talk 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that government endorsement is not a criteria for notability.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 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.