Deletion of Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses

Comment: There is a lot of discussion of problems that aren't relevant to a deletion discussion, particularly criteria for inclusion. Selection criteria are discussed in the |Manual of Style for stand-alone lists, not eletion policy|Deletion policy. The only way a lack of good selection criteria could be grounds for deletion is if there is good reason to think that they  ''cannot'' be found for this list. However, no one has really tried to define them yet. Anyone concerned with selection criteria should read about |selection criteria and discuss them on the talk page for the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL||WP:D||WP:LSC)

Comment: I think hiding the bibliography in Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses was a bad idea (see my comments Talk:Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Further_reading_restored|on the talk page, so I have restored it. However, concerns about that article are only relevant in relation to  (see Grrahnbahr's comment above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVSPLIT)

Comment: Bibliography list articles are permitted per  (see also :Category:Bibliographies and :Category:Bibliographies by subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: per /. The content is redundant, because it is already included into the JW main article and articles related to JW practices. If there is a disagreement about what to include to the literature list in the main article, it would be a POV fork to start a new article to be in control of what to include. I cannot see a comparability to lists of artists and authors complete work, is of relevance to this discussion, as this is an open topic with an unknown and possible huge number of possible relevant works, rather than a limited list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:REDUNDANTFORK||WP:POVSPLIT)