Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association

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. - Bobet 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association[edit]

vanity, listcruft. Delete sub-articles as well, most likely one-liners, including one website link. WP:NOT. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metro New York District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists Yy-bo 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definately Keep It's a central springboard for all the various districts, the history and details of which are also present on Wikipedia. This is a fairly sizeable and notable religious domination, as are Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. It is by no means vanity, nor are the sub-articles, as it 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. Finally, each of the entries in the subarticles provides useful information, such as the link to the home page of that district. Mugaliens 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a webhosting service, not a link directory. User:Yy-bo 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mugaliens. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given by Mugaliens. –Shoaler (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, otherwise we must delete all Catholic diocese and parish articles. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge or merge to Unitarian Universalist Association#Organization. That is the appropriate place to cover this material unless/until both 1) that article is big enough to need sub-articles broken out and 2) this has enough content to be worth breaking out. GRBerry 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe they must use external webhosting for their directories. Nothing against merge something into the main article. User:Yy-bo 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Mugaliens brings up some real good points. It doesn't help the deletionist's case that he/she/xe uses unclear terminology like "listcruft," which I have no understanding of. Sub articles are stubs, to be expanded upon. They're noted as such, with UU stub templates. I made all these, and this page. They're all valid articles; it's not their own fault that they haven't been expanded upon yet. HellaNorCal 03:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 1 Instead of he/she/xe just use User. Without the image (which is all the same), and the template, the district articles are just one-liners containing an external link. I do not see information above spelling the long form of an abbreviation. In this case, it is not a dictionary definition, but a webdirectory entry. And wikipedia is not a website directory. Hope this is more clear. See WP:NOT WP:VANITY User:Yy-bo 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2 Displaying your userpage, it looks you use wikipedia to promote Unitarian information. You can not write articles about an organisation which employs you. This is also common exclude for lottery draws (this is not a wikipedia policy) User:Yy-bo 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I don't see where you find that HellaNorCal is employed by the UU. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer I assume it because of the style of the user page. If not so, the user has vacany to elaborate, see above. Afd is not immediate deletion itself, just nomination and discussion of it (if it is appreciate or not). User:Yy-bo 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is merely a list leading to pages that say New York branch is based in New York - here is the external link. Unless both this and the individual pages can offer some notability reason this is nothing more than a web directory. Nuttah68 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every Roman Catholic bishopric has its own article, so a list of a large notable denomination's equivalents seems a keeper to me. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice of recreation. As is, the article violates Wikipedia policy: the content is not verifiable due to lack of reliable (or any) sources. -AED 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of this information is verifiable. I have added a Resources section with a link to sources in the Unitarian Universalist denomination website. –Shoaler (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2006 (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/Districts_of_the_Unitarian_Universalist_Association&oldid=1069486723"