Talk:Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Not an article

Lists of sources about a topic are not article content. If you want the list, save it to your own computer.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it is A1 speedy deletion material. It is a list of works on the JW, the context and subject seems pretty clear. Take it to AfD or to an RfC instead, to discuss this more in general instead, if needed. Fram (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

While a balanced list with authoritative entries is the first priority, having all the publications in a consistent format is something that should be done. Probably best to use the {{cite}} template family. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By or about

The articles title is somewhat diffuse, as it isn't clear if it is a bibliography by or about JW, unless you're actually reading the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References for list

Alan Liefting removed my citations, stating that "A biblio entry does not need a ref." True, it does not need a reference to prove that it exists, but there are other concerns. First, a list must satisfy the notability criteria for stand-alone lists, and one way (perhaps the only way) to demonstrate notability is to provide reliable third-party references that establish the notability of this list as a list per WP:LISTN. Also, the manual of style for stand-alone lists requires that a list should have selection criteria; otherwise it is indiscriminate. One common form of selection criteria for topic bibliographies is to require that each entry be in more than one of the third-party references. That is why I provided the citations. I am going to restore them, and anyone who wishes to remove them should clearly state how they intend to satisfy the notability requirements and avoid being indiscriminate. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The selection criteria should be explicitly stated in the lead. I have made a suggestion above (each entry found in multiple bibliographies), but I have not added it yet because I don't know how well it will work. I added the Bergman bibliography to the citations for the list, but I don't have access to its contents. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Identity

There are two authors for this book. The second author is R. M. de Vienne. I do not know how to add her name. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.122.5 (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annotations

I would like to discuss this issue of annotations. User Dianna recently deleted all annotations indiscriminately. They made the note that book reviews are not appropriate. I suggest we add back annotations but leave out reviews. This is an annotated bibliography and it is destructive to remove all annotations. MomLife (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]