Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Priestley District of the Unitarian Universalist Association


 * 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   redirect to Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association. insufficient material for a separate article, per Berian and others.  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley District of the Unitarian Universalist Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Could not find enough reliable sources to prove this organization's notability. Will withdraw if some are found though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add this article, which the author just created. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Creator here: Are you looking for non-UU references? --RayneVanDunem (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, under Wikipedia's notability standards, we will be looking for independent reliable sources. Let me ask a related question: why would separate articles for these UUA districts add meaningful content to our encyclopedic coverage of UU, beyond what is already laid out succinctly in the article Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association?--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Partly because I wanted to do something similar to the dioceses and episcopal provinces of, say, the usually-suspected religious bodies. But I admit that, without a prominent leadership that is more associated with a presbyterian or episcopal structure, it's hard to place names with these districts or add much to these articles beyond their associated "congregational clusters". Hardly much history to be found about these districts outside of UU material, as far as I can see. If the content found could be merged and integrated into a larger version of the Districts article, that *might* work just as well until more substance can be found. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, this would be notable, because such districts are equivalent to dioceses. However, until more non-UU sources can be found, a redirect can't hurt. I only found 3 Gnews Ghits. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I agree that we are dealing with the equivalent of dioceses, which would certainly be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Bearian. Catholic and Episcopal dioceses are notable because they tend to get lots of coverage, not because they're dioceses.  Since the UUA is largely congregational, its diocese-level structures are much less relevant for outsiders and shouldn't be expected to get as much coverage.  Given the paltry findings from Bearian's search, I believe that we should consider them non-notable and thus suitable for inclusion only as redirects to the article suggested by Whpq.  Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete 3 passing mentions in gnews does not cut it. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2012 (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.