Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCHUG

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCHUG

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

The organization this article is based upon fails WP:N (it fails WP:ORG and receives zero non-trivial Google news hits under its full name or the acronym). The article was recently proded and seconded, but then merged/redirected to a new section of United Church of Canada in a good faith effort to save what that editor thought might be useful text. After discussing on the talk page, however, the text saved from this article and placed into the receiving article was removed as not worthy of inclusion in the United Church of Canada article (and as evidenced by the talk, not even the editor who saved the text disagrees). That left UCHUG as a redirect to a non-existent section of an article with no clear connection to the acronym. I then RfDed the redirect here. An editor objected to using RfD to delete what had in the recent past been an article. So, per that editor's suggestion, I restored UCHUG to the state it had been in before it was merged (except that I removed the prod), and here we are at AfD. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Novaseminary (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the group wasn't/isn't notable enough for an article, and several editors don't believe it's notable enough for a paragraph in United Church of Canada - see Talk:United Church of Canada#UCHUG PK T(alk) 22:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to establish notability, and so minor even a merge was rejected. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (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.