Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient third-party sources. Individual publications fail notability guideline for books. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#JW_publications Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publications that have third-party references in this article are already mentioned at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This again? A similar 2009 AfD by the same nominator was closed by an administrator with the conclusion:
"The result was redirect to

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents...
".

Editors unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witnesses should keep in mind that JWs release at least three or four new publications every year, and nearly every title has an initial run of several million. While those titles are not necessarily notable for Wikipedia's purposes, this article doesn't seek to discuss all those titles (the majority of those titles can properly be relegated to a mere list or a general discussion). These few titles (which are each discussed in a section of this article) are significantly more notable; each of these books has is one of a handful of key publications used as manuals, tools, and references by Jehovah's Witnesses and those who study them. These publications are used globally, detailing information specific to new baptizands, fulltime pioneer ministers, and elders. These few titles are significantly more notable even than most evangelical materials with runs of several million.

Previous to the creation of this particular article, several notable publications of Jehovah's Witnesses each had an individual article. Among them:

Ironically, Jeffro77, the editor who here nominates this article for deletion, actually suggested this article's creation, stating, "suggest maybe a [new article] Jehovah's Witnesses organizational manuals for

reference works'. Pay Attention is certainly more notable" (italics and wikilinks added).

AuthorityTam skillfully(?) omits the beginning of my sentence, which was "if the book is actually notable enough for inclusion".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, "

Shining as Illuminators in the World" (an article since 2007 about JW's full-time minister training manual, a notable publication); an administrator chose instead to redirect that article title to this article section; see May 16, 2009.

Of the original articles prior to consolidation, none had any third party references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Jeffro77 has bided his time for a year, at first merely diluting notable titles alongside others, but now relaunching his effort to delete detailed discussion of notable JW book titles, in this case a handful of books which are integral to the organization and meetings of a major religion. Doesn't it seem remarkably odd to shoot directly for deletion without giving {{Template:Refimprove}} or a

similar template
even a moment to work? Editors should be assured that it would be time-consuming but boringly straightforward to collect the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of additional references showing the notability of these titles. Again, odd that an AfD is the first choice of an experienced editor such as Jeffro77. Odd for an editor to try and delete an article he himself had suggested a year earlier.

AutorityTam was advised on concerns of notability by me in May 2009.[2][3][4]--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was AuthorityTam, not I, who originally suggested the series of articles.[5][6][7][8].--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 is himself a former Jehovah's Witnesses, having discussed his "firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion, as well as his "close contact" and his claimed personal observations, such as how "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored". Regarding JW publications and JWs themselves, Jeffro77 has claimed that they evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic", and "morally bereft". Before being rejected by an administrator, Jeffro's 2009 AfD was only seconded by one other editor, BlackCab aka LTSally, a self-described "ex-JW" editor who had previously declared himself "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous" Jehovah's Witnesses.

AuthorityTam here makes various false or misleading claims about my edits:
  • A false statement implying ""firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion", in reference to a diff in which I referred to the existence of firsthand experiences, which I did not claim as my own. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • A reference to my "close contact" with JWs, wherein I indicated that I happened to know JWs (through relatives though it's no one's business), which AuthorityTam seeks to use in association with the imagined admission of 'expulsion'. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • A misused reference to 'evading taxes' in reference to the Watch Tower Society's change from the sale of literature by the organisation to avoid sales tax imposed on literature following a US Supreme Court case (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1374/argument, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=493&invol=378) involving Jimmy Swaggart, which is not at all a statement that individual JW members 'evade taxes' at all. (edit was nearly 3.5 years ago)
  • A statement about inflating statistics of 'preaching', based on observation and reports from others. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • An opinion about how JWs must acquiesce to doctrines they don't necessarily agree with. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • Various opinions about JW policies based on observation and reports from others (edits from 4 and 4.5 years ago)
  • An expression of disdain about a JW article that suggested it was unfortunate that "apostate" JWs could not be killed by their family members (edit was 4.5 years ago) (Actual quote from JW source "We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy ... The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.")
Put simply, AuthorityTam is quick to indicate (quite irrelevantly) that I don't agree with everything JWs say and do in order to sidestep the issue of whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. AuthorityTam is very quiet here about many occasions on which I argued strenuously against claims that JWs are not Christian, and many other issues - unlike AuthorityTam, I don't have time at the moment to leisurely trawl through edit histories - see JW Talk history pages and history pages of related articles if desired.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and administrators who are less directly affected by Jehovah's Witnesses should reject the efforts of a former JW (such as

Aid to Bible Understanding".
The fact is that Wikipedia is well-served by a detailed discussion of a handful of individually-notable but related publications. This discussion in this article should be in addition to a mere list or general discussion of the hundreds of other JW titles of lesser notability.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what AuthorityTam claims above, I did not 'discuss my expulsion from JWs' in the ambiguous statement AuthorityTam misuses above at all; I simply indicated that firsthand experiences exist. Additionally, AuthorityTam's assertion is irrelevant to whether the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Aside from that, when these articles were first created as a concession for existing individual articles for non-notable JW publications, AuthorityTam (the main proponent for keeping the original articles) was warned that there were still notability concerns.
As already stated, any notable details about these publications can be indicated at the existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorityTam also claims that I have taken quick action to move for the article's deletion rather than add a {{
refimprove}} template. In reality the article has had a ({{Primary sources}}) template seeking third-party references since May 2009.Templates weren't added to this article as was done for the 'evangelizing' article. However, it is clear that the same concerns existed for the family of three similar articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It is both disturbing and amusing that AuthorityTam has decided to trawl through my Talk page edits from the last 5 years to find 'evidence' that I disagree with certain JW beliefs and policies, and of course AuthorityTam hasn't bothered to dredge up other edits where I have defended the religion where other editors have made false claims. Of course, none of this has any bearing at all on whether this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. As previously stated, anything notable about the JW publications cited should be at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear lack of notability. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of publications issued by a religion that attract no external notability. And AuthorityTam's conduct and comments here in denigrating an editor for a standard Wikipedia administrative process are beyond belief. BlackCab (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After doing quite a lot of searching on WP I found many articles about various publications produced by or about religious organizations. I am fully convinced that aritcles about various current and past JW publications are entirely appropriate and noteworthy. No one will deny that JW's are a well known and often controversial religious group which affects many people. George (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the criteria for notability of articles about books. Though the religion itself is certainly notable, there is little evidence that specific JW publications are so notable that it is necessary to have more than the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications where any notable details can be located. Most third-party sources citing JW literature are either critical or cite factoids rather than overall discussion of the specific publications themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I will not repeat AuthorityTam's and George's comments. I agree with both.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement with AuthorityTam here is not good company to be in. Aside from the irrelevant personal attacks, AuthorityTam dishonestly claims that I suggested the article, and complains about allowing the article time to garner reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The titles may be worth mentioning, and their existence is certainly notable enough, but as part of a single list. JW literature garners public attention in general, but this breakdown lacks the third-party coverage sufficient to support separate, categorized, articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of notability in books

Before Jeffro77 interspersed, my comment looked like this.

How dare I intersperse your irrelevant personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threat to delete these notable titles has always seemed awfully close to

WP:SNOWBALL
, but this AfD hasn't yet been dismissed, so... I took five minutes and checked just one website: books.google.com for the individual titles. So this is JUST BOOKS which help demonstrate the notability of these titles:

  1. "
    Our Kingdom Ministry" 74 books
  2. "
    Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education" 10 books (its predecessor title was referenced in 38 books
    )
  3. "
    Organized to Do Jehovah's Will" 4 books (immediate predecessor 41 books, earlier predecessor 50 books
    )
  4. "
    Shining as Illuminators in the World" 4 books
  5. "
    Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" 21 books

If editors still seriously question the notability of these titles, I can cite some periodicals next week. This misguided mission of deletion just seems remarkable for its long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As those Google results show, they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability about books, and a simple count of Google search results does not establish notability. Acknowledging that a book exists is not the criteria. Most of the results (in a standard Google search) are references to those works on JW-related web forums, with some Wikipedia mirrors and book stores thrown in. AuthorityTam has previously tried to misuse the
Google method[9] (after confusing nouns as modifiers with standard adjectives).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Regarding the claim of "long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions"... I expressed concern at the outset about notability, but have allowed a year for citations to be added, for which I am criticized by AuthorityTam. If I had allowed less time, is it likely that AuthorityTam would be less critical?? There are certainly "strong emotions" at play here, but they're not mine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Google Books search, AuthorityTam refers to 'search results' as 'books [that discus the specific JW publications]'. However, of the 'books' (search results), many simply quote a JW publication but don't involve discussion of the book itself. Some simply refer to a phrase, and not the book at all (e.g. see results from above link for "Shining as Illuminators in the World"; 10 of the 21 'books' that mention "Pay attention" refer to Acts 20:28 with no reference to the JW publication at all). As previously stated, any notable information about specific JW publications can be included at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JW publications article

I have edited Jehovah's Witnesses publications to include all information referenced in third-party sources from this family of articles, with provision to add sections for any information about specific JW publications if they are discussed (rather than merely briefly cited) by notable third-party sources. The article also includes brief mention of other primary JW publications, even though they are not mentioned in third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then it would be best to merge this into that. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_publications_for_adherents&oldid=1137946821"