Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Unitarian Conference

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. The discussion went back and forth a bit, but rough consensus in the end is that, even taking into account the newly-added sources, the organisation isn't notable. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Unitarian Conference[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability, no sources, organization no longer seems to exist UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited is the organization's website, which says "Congratulations! You have successfully set up your website!" but has no actual content. If there are reliable independent sources, they need to be added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck the above due to Eastmain's addition of references. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and an archive of the group's website. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the references added to the article by Eastmain that show reliable sources coverage in books and newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization no longer exists, from what I can see. All of the references added seem to point to an organization that just "disappeared". If we do keep it, I think we should only do so if we update the article to use the past tense. Otherwise, we're suggesting that it's still an active organization, which doesn't appear to be true. (further edit) I found this Facebook post on what was their official Facebook group that seems to provide evidence that it no longer exists: https://www.facebook.com/groups/americanunitarian/posts/10167394170830074/ SilverAnsible (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thank you Eastmain for adding references. If it no longer exists, WP:NTEMP. Bruxton (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that references have been added, the article looks good enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Now have multiple citations. CastJared (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked WP:CIR issues. scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So 3 references got to do with the name of the organisation, which is WP:PRIMARY, 1 around the trademark, which is the name again, and one Ref 1, which comes from the organisation itselfs. 4 routine references and a WP:PRIMARY ref. None of these reference are independent and they fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS. They are absolutely junk and don't prove the organisation is notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is from The Chicago Tribune and mentions the setting up of the organisation here, reference 3 is about their opposition to gay marriage,ref 4 is about the organisation changing their name which is obviously relevant. Not great coverage but it is independent and relevant imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best you say about it, is that it verifies it existed, but the coverage is routine. Establishing an organisation and changing their name have been considered to fail WP:SIRS for about a decade. Its routine coverage. And its an affiliated news story for the Tribune. scope_creep^Talk 23:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with scope_creep^Talk on this one. These reference don't prove the most important part of notability - significance. My vote doesn't change based on these sources. SilverAnsible (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't get all the keeps. The reference being held up as the best one is just a passing mention. The entirety of what the Chicago Tribune says is this: Two years ago, dissidents formed the American Unitarian Conference, saying liberal politics had overtaken the church. The conference's president, Virginia attorney David Burton.... The entirety of the Bangor Daily News article says David Burton of the American Unitarian Conference, a group calling the church to return to its theological roots, said Unitarian Universalist is a religion that does not have much religion left in it. Both of these then have a quote from Burton... and that's it. No information about the church other than, effectively, it's mission statement. The other two real sources cited, the Spokesman Review and the Gadsen Times ... are the same AP article. So it changed its name. That's clearly the best source of the bunch in terms of depth, and it's a pretty routine announcement that was published because the UU is notable, not because the AUC is notable. It merits inclusion in the UU article, not the creation of a separate one about an entity we can say almost nothing about. My own search for sources found a lot more copies of Wikipedia than anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches if there's anything relevant to be merged. Otherwise delete. Sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, consider sources added and the suggestion to Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - two solid references establish notability. ~~The Associated Press (AP) article in the Bangor Daily News provides a reliable, non-trivial reference for the article.~~ There's also the Associated Press article from the Gadsden Times about the dispute with the main Unitarian Universalist Association.

Other refs: the shorter AP article from the Spokane Spokesman-Review doesn't add much. The Chicago Tribune article does a good job of covering the theological issues but is not about this organization. danielharper.org is a blog.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., thank you @Eastmain! A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches after closer reading of the AP article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Siroxo
Gadsden Tiems	~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	AP	Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	✘ No
Bangor Daily News		AP	Entirety of coverage consists of "a group calling the church to return to its theological roots"	✘ No
Spokesman-Review	~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	AP	Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	✘ No
Chicago Tribune	In paper's voice	Chicago Tribune	~ Discusses formation and a single belief, with short statement from from group president	~ Partial
Yet Another Unitarian Universalist	Cites this Wikipedia article	Personal blog		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment It appears that editor @Siroxo: has made a source analysis table that shows that there is no valid sourcing on the article, but not actually made a comment or a !vote in support of the table entry. Bit odd I think, but I guess its ok, as the intent is there. scope_creep^Talk 16:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to leave a comment but got caught up making the table. Merge seems appropriate. —siro χ o 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the SECOND "Final relist". I should not have relisted this discussion again. However, I don't know how to revert a relisting so I'll just apologize and promise not to let this happen again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after considering new sources, the article does not have reasonable enough sources. Merging the article could happen as suggested (really it seems as though a number of Unitarian stubs could be combined into a singular article about Unitarian conferences/groups/organisations but that feels a but a bit off topic).

I think the article would need a significant amount of information added by new sources to be a constructive addition. Pedantical (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would need to pass NCORP and it doesn't even approach it. I agree with Siroxo's source analysis. I don't think that there is meaningful content to be merged. List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches does not mention this topic so a redirect would make sense only after the fact, i.e. after someone has hypothetically added it to the list, but it's questionable if it should be included in the list in the first place, when considering WP:CSC -- considering this AfD, as this is now provenly a non-notable organization, and if the list is a CSC-type-1 list (every member notable or a promising red link), which appears to be the case, it should not be included in the list. Therefore the article should not be redirected. Or merged. It should be deleted.—Alalch E. 08:18, 3 July 2023 (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.