Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans


 * 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The result was that the nomination was withdrawn and the article kept. JChap2007 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans


A non-notable organization within the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many of these (like the Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--79 unique Google hits, no reliable sources) I am just prodding, but this one generates 15,000 Google hits (although I could not find a reliable source among them), so I'm bringing it here. JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's a genuine religious organisation scope_creep 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this about.com page constitutes a reliable source.  Ultra-Loser  Talk / Contributions 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Media mention this past week in New York State's Oldest Newspapaer, doesn't tell much, but meets WP:RS, nom's own check suggests notability. -MrFizyx 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I saw both of those. The about.com piece reads like a press release and the Poughkeepsie Journal article quotes a member of the organization talking about something else, not about the CUUP.  Merely generating a lot of Google hits does not establish notability. JChap2007 03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: 709 unique G-hits is near the limit of what google will produce for any search (per WP:GOOGLE). This is some indicator that the organization's name is "out there."  The organization claims to have about 70 chapters.   How big does an organization's membership need to be to assert notability?  I have difficulty taking seriously the two criteria in WP:CORP (well, esp. #2). -MrFizyx 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of 2 listed criteria one applies to English football teams? JChap2007 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, entries in books.google.com look like potentially good sources. -MrFizyx 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Berger looks like a good source from the index. And it rates some discussion in the other books as well. Withdrawing nomination.  JChap2007 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This group seems to have notablity, I think it should be kept and improved. I have placed a references tag on the page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.