Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for youths

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for youths[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient third-party sources. Individual publications fail notability guideline for books. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#JW_publications Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an evangelical resource for any religion. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR--70.80.234.196 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator created the article [1] in 2009 and seems to be in disagreement on the direction that it has taken since then. I note that nominator did notify the other major contributor about the nomination, so I'll wait to see what each of them has to say, but Wikipedia should treat this no differently than it does on articles pertaining to any religious belief. I see no merit in the "evangelical" label assigned to such articles. Mandsford 18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of these articles was first proposed at the JW WikiProject Talk page two weeks ago. Any well-sourced information should be (and largely, is) at Jehovah's Witnesses publications (though this particular article has 0 third-party sources) and there doesn't seem to be sufficient notability for these special-focus articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not for wikipedia. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the other three AfDs for this series of articles User:AuthorityTam has made irrelevant ad hominem attacks on me (about which no more needs to be said than what I have already added to the other AfDs) rather than addressing the issues of notability with these articles. The relevant part of the editor's attack is the editor's contention (echoed by Mandsford above) that I have nominated the article for deletion even though I created it. So to clarify, I originally created the article at AuthorityTam's suggestion[2][3][4][5] as a favor, and indicated that I was still concerned about notability[6][7][8]. In response to my acknowledgment of creating the articles at his suggestion, he deleted my comment which he considered to be "obsolete", though he retains most Talk comments back to 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, article is used solely as a platform to promote JW publications that attract no external attention. BlackCab (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JW publications article[edit]

I have edited Jehovah's Witnesses publications to include all information referenced in third-party sources from this family of articles (there were none in this article), with provision to add sections for any information about specific JW publications if they are discussed (rather than merely briefly cited) by notable third-party sources. The article also includes brief mention of other primary JW publications, even though they are not mentioned in third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.