Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses
From 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Leuko 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses
Wikipedia is not the phone book. Most of this article is directory information for various religious organizations. Leuko 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I could see an argument to keep, but the section at the end needs to go. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- What's really left though? Leuko 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The most encyclopedic stuff in the article is the few parts with descriptions and not just directories. But the argument to keep would not rely solely on the content of the article, but also the concept. After all, the organization of a religion is something that needs to be covered at least in part. But how much? And in what form? I'm not sure yet. FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep a lot of this article is worthwhile and worth keeping, issues with the excess of details can be dealt with, we can be bold and do some cropping.KTo288 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 01:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge Looks like a directory level entry to me. Merge whatever non-directorial info deemed appropriate back into the main article Corpx 06:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses have been notified of this debate. --KTo288 09:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as notable and well-sourced. Chop it down to size. I added this to WP Law. Bearian 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yet another instance where WP:NOT has been utterly misinterpreted and misused. Above and beyond the fact that no phone numbers are listed, the purpose of the article is to describe the organization's often opaque corporate structure, which it does using reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you look at the state of the article when it was nominated? I would argue it was not a misinterpretation of WP:NOT at all, but it has been cleaned up since then. Leuko 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did. It contained phone numbers. It consisted primarily of a description of the corporate governance of the organization. With very little effort, other editors were able to remove all of the phone numbers and what appeared as directory information and left us with an article which seems to have a consensus for retention. There is no reason that this article needed to be submitted for deletion to accomplish these goals. Alansohn 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- There was a couple of paragraphs worth keeping, but 90% was just addresses and phone numbers of various chapters. As the article is cleaned up now, and there seems to be a consensus to keep it, I'll withdraw the nomination. Leuko 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did. It contained phone numbers. It consisted primarily of a description of the corporate governance of the organization. With very little effort, other editors were able to remove all of the phone numbers and what appeared as directory information and left us with an article which seems to have a consensus for retention. There is no reason that this article needed to be submitted for deletion to accomplish these goals. Alansohn 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you look at the state of the article when it was nominated? I would argue it was not a misinterpretation of WP:NOT at all, but it has been cleaned up since then. Leuko 13:44, 30 August 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.
