Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio[edit]

Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of this specific congregation is not established. Sources and article text mostly fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage and/or the congregation is simply mentioned in passing but is not the subject of the reference. The few national sources are about individuals, not the congregation itself. JonRidinger (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"From WP:N: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." That means sources need to focus on the congregation itself, not random aspects of the congregation. The article on the minister's time in jail simply mentions that she's from the UU Congregation in Kent. If anything it could be used to claim notability for the minister, but would likely fail for the lack of significant coverage. Anything from the Record-Courier, WKSU, or KentWired is a local news source (all three are based in Kent, Ohio), so they fall under WP:ROUTINE, and one mention in the New York Times doesn't meet the notability requirement of significant coverage, on top of the article, again, not focusing on the congregation, but on the program they were doing and it being part of a larger national trend of Harry Potter-themed programming. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...". And this subject easily satisfies these criteria. And no, you can't separate out the minister from the congregation -- both are intertwined -- the minister's decision to protest in Arizona was supported by the congregation (and several other members traveled with her to protest -- travel expenses were partially subsidized by the congregation). Fairness in immigration is a deeply-held Unitarian cause, and when ministers get arrested, it is properly national news. And no, you can't separate out a church from its programs such as its successful educational program for children and young people -- it's all part of the church. Further, there are additional print sources being located which will add to the notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources from national media don't include any details about the congregation at all other than mentioning her has the minister. Further, after she was released, it was no longer covered, so if anything a slight case could be made for the notability of the minister, but not the congregation. Also, successful does not necessarily equate to notable. I can name quite a few successful or "popular" programs run by churches in Kent, Ohio, but I would never consider the congregations notable simply because of that. Bear in mind too that references from the general UU page, while national, can also be considered WP:PRIMARY sources since the main UU page has a direct connection to the local congregation. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This reads like a very typical local church, though of a less common denomination. If this article provided a serious history of the church, I have thought twice, but it jumps from the names of the founding families, over 130 years (on which nothing at all) to 2000. I am slightly hazy on the chronology of American settlement, but I thought Ohio was settled considerably before 1866, so that I would have expected there to be some rather older churches in Ohio, and some still in use since before the Revolution on the east coast. Tomwsulcer was the article creator. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Based on just the original article, I absolutely agree with all of the above, but as a UU that just worked on a wikipedia page for a more recent, but somewhat more distinguished UU church, there are a number of important points about this church: the history includes activity in the women's suffrage movement in the 1890's to 1914 and in the peace movement in the 60s-70s, especially after the Kent State shootings. Also, it had a very early woman minister -- not the first, that was Olympia Brown, also a Universalist, but not long after her, and she had to struggle to be allowed in theology school. Wikipedia should also be careful about deletions involving historically less documented subjects -- the Universalist side of the UU church is one whose history has been neglected because Universalists tended to be working class, while Unitarians were upper class. However, as evidenced by the history page on their Web site and the Kent library collection, there have been recent efforts to remedy this. I have added history that I have been able to find easily, and that should be enough to warrant inclusion. Perhaps Mr. Sulcer will make a little more effort to find additional material on the church. Finally (I didn't document this on the page), it's a very long-standing church, the second oldest church building in Kent and the oldest still in use as a church. It's clearly one of the oldest churches in Kent that is still around. I didn't include that in the article, because I have to move on now.Ngriffeth (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, the UU church's significance locally is their building, not their congregation. That in itself isn't notable, though, unless the church would be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which is unlikely given not only the changes made to the building, but the planned renovation. The church is mentioned at Kent, Ohio#Religion and has been for several years. Photos and sketches of the church are also here. Quite a few religious congregations in Kent have ties to the history of the city or notable causes (the United Church of Christ was originally the Congregational Church where John Brown attended, for instance, and was a noted abolitionist congregation). While interesting, that is more appropriate for the History of Kent, Ohio article than a stand-alone article on the congregation. Local significance, especially in smaller towns like Kent, doesn't equal notability and the UU has no more local significance than any other religious body in Kent. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I actually said was that the notability relates to their work in the women's suffrage movement in the 1890s forward and in the peace movement in the 1970s. My mention of the church building was an afterthought.Ngriffeth (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nonsense. A church = ministers + congregation + building, and this one is notable in all three respects.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • / *Keep -- The church's history is also entwined with the history of the city of Kent and with the founding of Buchtel College, which became the University of Akron. The church's involvement in the events surrounding the May 4th 1970 Kent State shootings is important (they counselled conscientious objectors beforehand and hosted an “illegal” memorial service for the victims during martial law). More recently, they were pioneers of GLBT rights, and the same-sex wedding of their minister was the first published in the wedding section of the local paper, the Record Courier. There is documentation for all of this, and perhaps publishing an article before assembling the documentation put the “cart before the horse,” but it’s still an topic worthy of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimruch (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as notability of ministers, congregation, and/or building add up. BTW, note that a good Alternative To Deletion would be to Merge or Redirect to the church's row (which I just added) in List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches, where a picture and a 2-3 sentence summary description can/should be provided. One reason that Merge or Redirect is better than Deletion because it would keep the edit history (at the redirect left behind) and keep Talk page discussion, allowing in the future for the article to be revised in ways that meet any complaints. But IMO the church meets separate article notability. --doncram 04:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as this is still noticeably too focused with specifications such as what the inside looks like and other architecture jobs they've applied in the past and then what activities the church itself has been involved with such as numbers of members, musical events, services, book sales and also planned kids activities (what church has never had this?); none of that actually substantial an article here as there's also this information about any church, thus we cannot automatically keep every article because of that; aside from its age, there are no claims of historical connections pr otherwise outstanding claims, therefore this also suggests there would not be enough for a convincing article. With this said, it would basically sinply be best mentioned at the local community's own article as a limited amount of information. Had this been part of a national or international organization, there may have been some better claims there, but there is not. Also, the 2 Keep votes above specifically mention other matters such as that it's significant to the community and claims like this, but that's still not an actual basis if how and why we can keep this independently. The next comment then mentions about merging and redirecting L, essentially suggesting it may in fact not even be acceptable, but they then finish "it meets independent notability".SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(my earlier comment removed)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems rather unnecessary because I have explained in detail why this article is unacceptable, both about this AfD and the article. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "A church = ministers + congregation + building, and this one is notable in all three respects." There are countless examples on Wikipedia of separate notability of buildings, organizations, and individuals. An organization can be notable without their specific building (which is the case for most high schools and even city governments), a building can be notable simply because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (including churches) or has its own significant coverage, and individuals can obviously be notable for many reasons without being part of a notable organization. Likewise, just because a notable individual was part of an organization doesn't necessarily make that organization notable on its own, nor does occupying a notable building. The UU's neighbor in Kent, the Franklin Township Hall, is notable because the building is listed on the NRHP. If it wasn't listed, the building would simply be mentioned in the government section of the Franklin Township, Portage County, Ohio article. Freedom Congregational Church is another listing on the NRHP and the article is about the structure. Of course the history of the building is going to make mention of the congregation that uses/used it, but not as the WP:SCOPE of the article. Further, if the building wasn't listed on the NRHP, it wouldn't be notable based on current sourcing.

Organizations (schools and congregations especially) can, and often do, move. Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) is notable and its current and past buildings are mentioned, but in context as part of the overall subject. The current building itself is not notable and the only individuals mentioned are those who have notability on their own. But no, as of yet, I still haven't seen evidence that the Kent UU congregation has received significant coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, the building itself isn't listed on the NRHP (and no attempt is currently being made to do so), and the only notable member I can find so far is John R. Buchtel and he wasn't a member very long. Again, the issue here is whether or not the sources show notability and not simple routine coverage. This isn't an issue of the state of the article or it lacking in sources. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT.

I also fail to see why SwisterTwister's philosophy on article deletion has any relevance here and believe that could be considered a personal attack. The only personal information that would have any relevance here is if an editor has a direct tie to the subject of the article (i.e. is a member of the congregation), and could potentially have a conflict of interest and/or could be attempting to canvass. Please refrain from those kinds of statements. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. (my earlier comment removed)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but is still irrelevant to this discussion. Past deletion discussions and AfDs only have relevance here if they reference some sort of policy precedent or to point out a potential conflict of interest, both directly related to this article. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(my earlier comment removed)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

  • An available source about the church is a two-box archive at Kent State University, with summary history (a citable source itself)
  • The church's involvement with the Kent State shooting deserves to be told more. The church's history page summarizes notable young person William F. Schulz's involvement, starting as a 20-year-old minister there in 1970 (before the May 4, 1970 Kent State shooting). More can be said about him (although he appears not to have been the main minister of the church, and is not yet mentioned in the article) and the church. The source in the article about the church defying an order not to congregate, and its resolutions, is currently a source from the church itself, but I expect this is covered in other unassociated reliable sources. Kent State campus was completely evacuated I gather; a UU church would have been a center for activity then, I would expect. News articles nowadays are routinely online, but 1970 was pre-internet.
  • There is vast coverage related to Kent State; see for example this 162-page (unusually long) NRHP site nomination document. (By the way it shows a map of campus and shooting location on page 82. Where is church located, relative to this?) I don't see the UU church mentioned in the 162-pager directly, but the document is focused upon the on-campus site of shooting, and it cites many sources that we can't check online. There are probably masters theses and dissertations about Kent State, too.
--doncram 20:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I kinda agree with Tomwsulcers math, a marginal or better gng claim in three areas seems enough to me. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Tomwsulcer and because my search on google books of "Unitarian Universalist Church" + Kent Ohio turned up a trail of notability going back a century. (User:SwisterTwister's assertion about present article is invalid and, coming form an experienced editor, inane since the standard at AFD is the notability of the topic, not the present condition of the article which can be tagged for improvement).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Citing how the article contains nothing but what the church activities such as childrens' activities, luncheons, etc. are not what makes an encyclopedia, actual substance is, the same goes for actually listing mere local sources about what they want to say about their local church. I have also not been the only one to cite these concerns above, and once we start accepting such trivial articles that contain information that may as well be from the local town listing, we're not a suitable encyclopedia for anything. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Sufficient RSs establishing notability. pretty IittIe Iiar 07:05, 3 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unitarian_Universalist_Church_of_Kent_Ohio&oldid=1089517905"