Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses brouchures

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. dbenbenn | talk 13:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses brouchures

• I believe that articles about every one publication is in no way necesarry. But I think it is appropriate to have a list over Watchtower publications. So the articles about brochures and books should be kept going, but with some changes. Some of the books, however, could be described in their own articles. Summer Song
• Unencylopedic. Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like simple references to publications by WTB&TS, How can this be Unencylopedic? Keep. Dan w
• Keep, with a Comment I started this article, it is part of a new wikiproject. The entire thing is a work in progress. If you feel it needs to be merged, changed or deleted, then why not give us constructive criticism on the project's talk page instead of arbitrarily marking it for deletion? Thank you, george 02:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changing my vote to delete as I think the article in its' present form + the misspelling of the title is bad. I intende to reincarnate it as a description of these types of publications by JW's with proper spelling of the title and no links for each publication. (hopefully it will pass the "encyclopedic" test that way) george 00:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems a single link to the JW publications page placed in the JW article would suffice. Gamaliel 02:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a link farm. If it gets kept, though, please spell it correctly. RickK 06:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Radiant! 08:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Any reason not to merge with Jehovah's Witnesses? Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and the few useful phrases should be inserted in Jehovah's Witnesses. --NewAtair Δ 12:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge if you have to. DJ Clayworth 18:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a list of the titles of Jehovah's Witnesses 32-page brochures. The individual brochures are not suitable topics for encyclopedia articles and a list of them isn't, either. The fact that each brochure title is a red link makes it look like someone is planning to write a Wikipedia article on each brochure, which would not be a good thing. --BM 20:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• CommentIt appears this page will be deleted. Thanks for the critique. george
• Keep (with reservations). I think this is appropriate IF it provided navigation to articles about the brochures. However it does not, and a category template could provide the same information. I'd like to see it stay if the articles are completed within a 45-60 day timeframe. If not, it needs to go.
• Delete for reasons given by BM above. Fire Star 19:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopedic. Useful for research on the subject. Name needs fixing though. Might also do better as a category, though an annotated list article could be very valuable indeed - David Gerard 10:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as an annotated list without red-links. dbenbenn | talk 13:23, 16 Mar 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.