Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Substubs about Unitarian Universalist Association Districts


 * 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 Delete. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Substubs about Unitarian Universalist Association Districts
Sub-stub articles for Unitarian Universalist Association districts. Each article (with exceptions I discuss individually) reads "The X District of the Unitarian Universalist Association is a district, serving Unitarian Universalist congregations in [states] X, Y and Z." Included in the nomination are:


 * Ballou Channing District
 * Central Midwest District
 * Clara Barton District (also contains a few sentences on namesake)
 * Florida District
 * Heartland District
 * Joseph Priestley District (also contains a few sentences on namesake)
 * Massachusetts Bay District
 * Metro New York District
 * Mid-South District (has 3500 members)
 * Mountain Desert District
 * New Hampshire-Vermont District


 * Northeast District
 * Ohio-Meadeville District
 * Pacific Central District ("They have a very active Young Religious Unitarian Universalists community..." no independent source is cited for this)
 * Pacific Northwest District
 * Pacific Southwest District
 * Prairie Star District
 * Southwest District
 * St. Lawrence District
 * Thomas Jefferson District

These articles were nominated (along with the list Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association) on September 2nd and the result was Keep. Normally I don't like renominations, but the first nomination was primarily for the list (which I am not nominating) and I am presenting different arguments for deletion than were raised in the first AfD. Moreover (and more importantly) the arguments supporting keep were particularly unconvincing. They were as follows:
 * 1) "This is a fairly sizeable and notable religious domination, as are Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc." According to our article Major religious groups, the Methodists and Baptists have 70 million members and the Presbyterians (and similar churches grouped with them) have 75 million. Unitarian Universalism has 800,000.
 * 2) "Each of the entries in the subarticles provides useful information, such as the link to the home page of that district." The information provided in the articles is largely limited to the name of the districts and what states they contain, information that is already accessible on the map on Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The information on the districts' namesakes is better covered in the articles about such persons.  That there are "very active" Young Religious Unitarian Universalists has not been established by independent, reliable sources. The primary function of most of these pages is indeed to provide a link to the home page of the district, but this is a reason to delete per WP:NOT a linkfarm, webhosting service, etc.
 * 3) "[I]t is listed as one of the top 20 major religious groups by population (800,000) on Wikipedia's Major religious groups entry. Getting rid of this would require getting rid of the entries for most of those, as well, yet all are very notable religious groups." Actually, it is number 20, right behind Tenrikyo and Neopaganism. Even ignoring the "If Article X, then Article Y" fallacy, this argument is wrong for several reasons. First, even by this logic, deleting articles pertaining to religion number 20 would not imply deleting articles pertaining to religions number 1-19.  Second, the nomination did not propose deleting Unitarian Universalism or Unitarian Universalist Association, it proposed deleting pages relating to districts of the UUA.
 * 4) "...otherwise we must delete all Catholic diocese and parish articles." This is similar to the previous argument and was repeated by several different participants, but is problematic for the same reasons. First, we do not have (nor should we have) articles on each Catholic parish.  We do have articles on Catholic dioceses, but these differ from UUA districts in several respects: (i) Catholic dioceses will on average comprise more members than UUA districts: the UUA has 800,000 members in 21 districts, so their average size is only 40,000; the Roman Catholic Church has 64,621,000 members in the United States and 194 dioceses, so the average size is ~333,000 (Larger Catholic dioceses for example, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago have more than a million members ; a more typical example is the Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse in Wisconsin with 200,000 ); and (ii) Catholic dioceses are organized primarily at the diocesan level rather than the parish level, with the diocese being responsible for schools, social services, supervision of priests, etc., while UUs primarily organize at the congregational level.

Most important for our purposes, the individual districts are not covered in independent, reliable sources and so, each taken on its own, is not notable. JChap2007 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment You are re-nominating these articles because you don't agree with the results of a decision from 5 weeks ago? It's pretty bad form to re-nom this quickly - the original nom did run it's 5 days. Robovski 05:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in that AfD, so it's not sour grapes or anything. There just seems to be a lot of cruft in this category and I'm trying to clean it out through merger, deletion, etc. JChap2007 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the whole lot per nom. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources (WP:ORG). Some may be speediable as few appear to have any assertion of notability. Membership information is self-referenced, and may fail WP:RS. Ohconfucius 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Ohconfucious. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Ohconfucious. WP:ORG is pretty clear in this case. --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Ohconfucious. The Unitarian Universalist Association is notable; its districts are not. --Metropolitan90 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Ohconfucious, WP:ORG. --Ter e nce Ong (C 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Ohconfuscious (and thanks) WP:ORGSkierRMH 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, I'm convinced by JChap2007. - Amists  talk •  contribs 11:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all WP:ORG is controlling in the specific circumstances of this case.-- danntm T C 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ohconfucious. Is there a policy available for this. scope_creep 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG, collaries in user membership counts and notability from WP:V and in some cases WP:RS. -- Elaragirl | | | | | | Talk 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I got rid of most of the associated Young Religious UU groups a while back for the same reason - they are not individually notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable things. --Brianyoumans 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure why all of these substubs are really necessary.  If someone can enlighten me, please do so.  RFerreira 05:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You hit the nail on the head. WP:CORP and WP:ORG specifically mention and exclude the cases of individual chapters and franchises. Ohconfucius 10:19, 17 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.