Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, but the page was speedy deleted anyway by Rick. bainer (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses

Article has been speedy deleted once after this VfD debate. This version does have more than just external links. It has descriptions of the external links and there are book references. However, the title is biased, and pieces of encyclopedic information in the article are few and far between, if there at all. Sjakkalle 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Briefly summarising a collection of external links is just as bad as having nothing but external links. In any event the article is not encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Megan1967 09:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It's not just a collection of links, it's anti-JW propaganda. Not that I go much on Jehovah's Witnesses myself, but this is just a series of attacks. Jamyskis 11:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (possibly speedily) Some of this could legitimately be added to the JW article, this could lead to some messy disputes, but it seems the only way to operate. PatGallacher 11:31, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is nothing more than an advertisement for a series of attack pages. As such it is non-encyclopedic and hopelessly POV. Scimitar 14:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — proselytization; non-neutral PoV. — RJH 15:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP This article should most definitely stay, as there is a mass of important critical information about this religious group that pro-JWs refuse to even consider, or want the public to see on the main Jehovah's Witness page, and is highly relevant information about this religion. If the page is removed then the links and information on the critical page must go on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, which will end up with World War 3 edits wars. Most regular JW posters on the main Jehovah's Witness page want this critical page to exist, but on a separate page as it now is, as they do not want critical information on the main Jehovah's Witness page. If you, Sjakkalle insist on creating trouble, you will end up trashing all the JW related pages, and creating chaos and edit wars that will never end. I can only see your personal motives as extreme trouble making, and meddling with your ego power games. I note you've made no contributions at all to anything on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, so why are you now inciting trouble and edit wars? Most JWs who use the main Jehovah's Witness page, agree there should be a critical page that is separate. If you insist on causing anarchy and trouble, you must take responsibly for trashing the main page also, as that is what will happen over and over again, if critical information is not given a rightful place, especially as most pro-JW posters on the main Jehovah's Witness page refuse to allow critical links, books, or any real balance (note all the links are positive on the main JW page as an example). This links page, Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses, should definitely stay, and you should keep from making trouble and chaos on Wikipedia, especially where you've made zero contributions to the pages/subjects you are seeking to destroy/sabotage. I suggest you Sjakkalle should desistfrom your thoughtless and irresponsible trouble making.Eyesopen 27 May 2005

I would point out that you're the only one arguing for keep, so Sjakkalle is hardly alone in his trouble making, nor is it trouble-making. The problems with the article have already been stated. Forgive me if I cause offense hear, but your reasoning makes as much sense as arguing that we need a "critical information on Jews" page to counteract edit wars with Nazis. Editting disagreements are, respectfully, no reason to keep a page that does not meet the criteria of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, launching ad hominem attacks on Sjakkalle does not strengthen your argument. Scimitar 21:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The article is misnamed (capitalization is irregular), and what it implies is "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses." Well, such criticisms aren't hard to find. The 1967 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for example, had an extremely short entry on the group, concluding that they are a "vile sect." A "criticisms" section in the JW article should eat most of this, but in an NPOV fashion. Article is inherently POV and should go. Geogre 17:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a mere collection of links. RickK 19:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Article has been recreated. I've listed it on WP:SD. --FCYTravis 21:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Gone againDunc|☺ 22:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, normally I'd say merge with Jehovah's witness, but that seems to have the matter covered already. --W(t) 21:24, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Comment: Although I have quite strong feelings about this particular religious cult, any information should go in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article, and represnet all views. That is NPOV.Dunc|☺ 22:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.