Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations

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. Looking at all the U.U. stuff up for AFD consensus is to delete or merge to this article, and no strong arguments for keeping this article, so the conclusion just seems to delete the 4 currently at AFD. W.marsh 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations[edit]

This appears to be a hybird of an article and a list. The article part is uncited and so appears to be original research. It's difficult to see how an article could be written about this subject, as the concept does not appear to have been discussed in independent, reliable sources. ([1] [2] [3]) Nominated previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations, which closed as no consensus. The problem with having this as a stand-alone list is that the organizations are not independently notable enough to have their own articles, and thus it is an inappropriate list for Wikipedia. Lists should be lists of articles. From Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists): "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Expanding the items on the list to include discussion about each item does not appear to fix the problem, even where stub articles have been created about the non-notable organizations in question, as notability isn't cumulative: you simply cannot combine the articles on several non-notable organizations to pass the notability guidelines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I don't really see what purpose the list serves within Wikipedia. None of its members seem notable. Yechiel Man 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Delete as WP:VSCA, just another *cruft article about a non-notable organisation that does not meet the relevant policy. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all other articles into this one, notable in that it describes process of Unitarian Universalist Association Guycalledryan 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is an admittedly poorly-named concept. Wikipedia:Notability describes what the word means in this context. The essential problem with a merge is that none of the organizations are described in independent, reliable sources and there are no sources that discuss UU Independent Affiliate Organizations generally. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I agree with Guycalledryan.--Devin Murphy 19:42, 1 June 2007 (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.