Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties

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 keep. Early closure per WP:SNOW. WjBscribe 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties

Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I strongly feel that the intention of creating this non-notable item, as a separate page (WP:NNC) meant for some other reason. The article may be redirected to any other Jehovah witness related pages under a special sub-category and also an expert may look into it. I therefore am suggesting this for deletion or re-directed in accordance. We don’t need this page anymore. Thank you. --Avinesh Jose 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• As for notability, Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."
• It is my intent to change the title of this article to Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties in the United Statess. However, it is considered bad form to rename an article while it is under AFD so I'm waiting for the AFD process to complete. However, it cannot complete because you haven't finished the startup process.--Richard 14:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The preceding comments are refactored from the article talk page. The nominator had difficulty with the listing process.--chaser - t 08:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The books in references and further reading and the many cases cited in the article itself sufficiently establish notability. This is a legitimate topic.--chaser - t 08:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A Google on the article's title will further establish the notability of the topic. --Richard 08:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • If chser approves this, I don’t have any problem. Because, he is the ultimate guy to say or judge. But listen when Richard started this article, he doesn’t give all these details. Check the history here, the article suddenly boomed to 14, 349 bytes from 680 bytes within two days.--Avinesh Jose 09:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Some people write entire articles and then upload them to Wikipedia. I start by creating stubs and then expanding them. Sometimes it takes days. Sometimes it takes weeks. Hopefully, other editors will come along and help expand the article. The trick is not to evaluate an article by its size but rather by how encyclopedic the scope is. In the future, you might ask the author what his intended scope is and not prejudge an article while it is still being written. If you look at the article's Talk Page under the heading "Question for the Author", you'll see that's what User:jonny-mt did. And, if you had re-read the expanded article when I suggested that you do so, you might have realized that your original assessment was off-the-mark. No matter. Just some lessons to take with you. Happy editing.
    • Also, technically, this AFD should run for 5 days although it can be closed early per WP:SNOW. It could also be closed early if you withdraw the nomination. Just say the word and Chaser can close it.
    • And, as an aside, Chaser is not the only person who can judge. Any admin other than myself can close this AFD. I can't because it would be a conflict of interest.
    • --Richard 09:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not the ultimate guy to say or judge. I'm not sure what gave you that impression.--chaser - t 09:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Chser affirmed in his user page that he has some “Extra set of buttons” which letting him to control everything as an admin. So I obviously thought that Chser can finally wish to take a wise decision during a dispute / controversy, (or the ultimate guy would have given those privileges to chaser)?...I may be flawed.--Avinesh Jose 05:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Any extended discussion of admin privileges should take place on a User Talk Page instead of on this AFD page. However, to answer your question briefly, Chaser's admin privileges are the same as mine unless he has more buttons than I do (e.g. if he has checkuser or Wikipedia:Checkuser). The admin privileges are granted by Wikipedia:Bureaucrats based on discussions at WP:RFA. Ultimately, all power at Wikipedia flows from the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation of which Jimbo is a member and Chair emeritus.
      • Any admin who is not involved in this discussion can close it. Technically, Chaser should not close this AFD because he has expressed an opinion. However, since the opinions seem to be going all one way, it probably wouldn't ruffle any feathers if he did close it. --Richard 06:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep In my civil rights/civil liberties course (a 400 level college political science course) the text dealt with at least two specific cases involving the Jehova's Witnesses, in the context of 'special rights' and under the general applicability doctrine of the courts. This leads me to believe the topic both has sufficient notability (being dealt with in undergrad-level general overview courses tends to imply an important topic I find) and depth (being suitable material for a Junior/Senior-level course) to form an article. Just take particular care to avoid PoV on this one... Wintermut3 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. "We don't need this page anymore"? While I don't agree with the beliefs of the Jehovah's witnesses, the legal precedent they set over the pledge of allegiance alone is worth this page. It's sourced, and although I don't see a lack of neutrality, any problems can be fixed. Maybe it should be renamed, but not deleted.72.151.55.27 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- The references provided in Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this topic per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The subjective assertion of non-notability advanced by the nominator is insufficient to outweigh this presumption. John254 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Well written, and provides good information I didn't know before, and am glad I know now. It's a very well written article except for the POV opening, and I agree with above about meeting WP:N Carter | Talk to me 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I am amazed that this article would be nominated for deletion not 3 days from it's creation... Anyhow, if this article can achieve NPOV it would be a great, and worthy, addition to the sum of human knowledge. Duffer 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but I concur with the suggested rename to ...civil liberties in the United States, unless it can be shown that they have had similar impact in other countries. This is a notable religious minority that has been willing to go to the mat on its beliefs and has thereby created numerous precedential case law. That's definitely a notable topic. There are also some POV problems that could be fixed with sourcing and attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 27 October 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.