Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses (2nd nomination)

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. Tyrenius 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

The information in the first half of the article is included in the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses article. The information in the second half of the article is included in more detail and with better quality on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses page.

The debate of the previous nomination can be seen here. The result was no consensus, however the article has changed since its nomination about this time last year. BenC7 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The second part of the article is written in an irritating "Some claim...others claim" style. Allon Fambrizzi 02:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Weak delete. Redundant due to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses articles.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The information is important, but its already in those other two pages so its redundant. Clamster5 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - merge any relevant info into 2 aforementioned articles. Redirect. -- Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 17:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content per nom. -- issue appears to be redundancy, not the content itself. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete; redundant to existing articles. FWIW, most of those things with "citation needed" tags are documented, often by the Witnesses' own literature; it's just a matter of someone sitting down and looking them up. I would do that myself, but I've been burned in the past spending an hour or two on articles that just end up getting deleted. And, like I said, we already have this information elsewhere. ergot 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant StuffOfInterest 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes a consensus... BenC7 07:19, 23 September 2006 (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.