List of Watch Tower Society publications : I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST .  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity .  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:LINKFARM .  This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century.  — Maile ( talk ) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I agree with the deletion.  If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website.  (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.)  Junkönig ( talk ) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here.  Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works. — Jeffro 77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here.  As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."  As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition.  I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands "I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."  So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit.  But NOT wholesale deletion.  Vyselink ( talk ) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together.  That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited .  The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst.  I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it?  I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative.  Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interjected comment : I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines , for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances ), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums ".  WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances".  I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures).  Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done.  There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world.  Vyselink ( talk ) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources.  Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34.  I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources.  List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources.  Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Vyselink’s rationale.  Alternatively, Move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource. — Jeffro 77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind?  The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource.  Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject.  Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago? — Jeffro 77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, obviously people can change their opinions over time.  I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website.  However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals).  Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website.  But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject. — Jeffro 77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD.  As such, I have created the subpage separately. -- Jeffro 77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was not trying to be pointy.  I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful.  I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there.  Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections?  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD.  That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history.  Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly. — Jeffro 77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination. — Jeffro 77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment —On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace.  (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)— Jeffro 77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment In a perfect scenario, these all should probably have been put on Wikisource .   Looks like someone started such an idea at Wikisource, The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence , but it never got beyond that.  — Maile ( talk ) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, trans wiki, or move to wiki-namespace Any of these options are fine, but I agree with Clover that the list doesn't satisfy the notability requirements.  ( t · c ) buidhe 01:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , This is a useful list that gives good information and article is well sourced.  Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 17:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Davidgoodheart : You do realize that all of the sources cited in this list are the religion's own publications, right?  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added).  An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value.  Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That does make sense in the context of a page in the article namespace, but it would kind of defeat the purpose of the usefulness of the list as a resource for editors.  I have therefore changed my previous '!vote' from 'Keep or move to WikiProject namespace' to only the latter.  We already have Jehovah's Witnesses publications for expanded information about notable literature. -- Jeffro 77 Talk 08:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep without prejudice to trimming or reworking.  Once we've decided that Watch Tower Society publications are notable, it's an editorial decision whether to list them, and then another editorial decision whether to spin that list out from the main article.  I would buy that, if there were only a dozen or so publications, then they would all be listed in the main article.  Given that there are many, I don't see a problem with splitting the list off into its own article.  I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, which is what's required for NLIST (it doesn't require every item on the list to be included in said groupings).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rhododendrites : I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then?  Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages?  If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging.  Or a redirect?  The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists.  As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail.  They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower , Awake! , Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation ) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rhododendrites : I would like to refute what you say here: I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group , see Vyselink's comment above.  Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The best source I can find dealing with this subject would be this , which expresses a similar sentiment to Knox above in the first few pages and would imply that sources about JW publications as a group don't really exist.  This could be used as a source for the handful of publications it mentions, though.  These are: The Watchtower and Awake!  The Secret to Family Happiness Questions Young People Ask Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom Reasoning from the Scriptures Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life.  I think that past this point it's probably best for me to step down and refrain from further discussion.  I will respond to any direct inquiries if one wishes to make them but I don't want to discourage further participation from others who may have other arguments.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group?  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rhododendrites : People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell.  I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones.  For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly.  He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake! .  Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary.  But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list.  If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs.  They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for all the info, Clovermoss (here and on my usertalk).  While I'm surprised there aren't more literature reviews of JW publications, it's not something I can see myself doing a deep dive into to properly support my keep ! vote in the near future.  Content to strike my ! vote and defer to what you've found.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am most swayed by Clovermoss's arguments.  I considered ! voting to move to WP space, but upon further consideration, it seems inappropriate to preserve an index of sources that are pretty much guaranteed to be primary and unreliable for any material they cover.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete