Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watchtowerites


 * 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. WjBscribe 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchtowerites

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete This is an extremely rare term that in my eyes do not need its own article. If it has to be mentioned at all, it should be done in another article. Summer Song 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A term being rare does not indicate nor imply it's factual inexistence. Your opinions, should not be the foundation of a deletion of factual and verifiable information about a subject. An encyclopedia is the keeper of information, whether that be historical, rare, current, it's state is irrelevant. If one were to apply your 'opinion' to rare subjects, wikipedia as well as many other historical archives of information would cease to exist. Protector of the Truth 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging this article with the main article where this information is interjected would be better than a redirect. Unless the plan is to add this article to the main article and have the redirect point to this information within the main article. Protector of the Truth 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jehovah's Witnesses. Epbr123 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses should easily be sufficient - the term exists and may be used as a search term, and as always, redirects are cheap. Not much info here to merge anyway, and since it's little more than a pseudonym it'd be silly to have its own article.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Arkyan. Recury 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Slight Merge with Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses: (i) The redirect has to be somehow motivated in the target page anyway and (ii) the term does not seem to be a common alternative name for Jehovah's Witnesses. While there is one historical source, the current usage is rather a label for a certain criticism. If there is consensus it can still be moved to the main page later.--Tikiwont 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Arkyan. There's nothing here other than a brief discussion of the term; the term and any other relevant information can be mentioned in Jehovah's Witnesses, if necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Redirect. Peterkingiron 19:17, 31 March 2007 (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.