"

 K U C 

The Bible in Matthew says to put your light on the top of the basket, not under it.  The foundation of notability is identifiability, which I think the congregation at KUC, insisting that they are not a building, is successfully obfuscating by having no pictures of the building on their website.  To quantify this statement, it took me eight full man hours to find KUC on a Google satellite map.  It was easy enough to locate the intersection, but looking at [the picture] on Google, there is no reason to suspect that the building in the distance is the church.  Zeroing in on the actual location was finally accomplished by finding a picture of the church on the web site of the architects of the church, and comparing this street view with the aerial view available from Google.  (Of course, by the liberal definition, I still haven't found the church on Google, because the church is not a building.  If this is your personal view, then you need to consider that this congregation is not currently WP:N notable.)  So assuming that the congregation feels righteous and will not help in identifying their we-are-not-a-building building, I'd suggest that the first thing you could do to improve the notability of KUC is to work on its identifiability: (1) get the maps specifically including Google improved, i.e., get the Google place marker on the building instead of in the middle of the street intersection, (2) does the church have a street address, (3) make your own web site with pictures of the building identifying the building as owned by KUC.  Include pictures of the view toward the surrounding area, such as showing where people park on Sunday morning, the Kippax Fair, and the ""adjacent park"" where the Christmas Day 2005 services were held. Is the maximum seating capacity of the sanctuary recorded by the fire department?  If there is a sign posted to that effect, the sign could be photographed.

Assuming you have access to local libraries and local newspaper archives that go back to 1969 that would include articles about the previous names for the church, you should be able to find additional articles that are not available on the internet so as to satisfy WP:GNG.  You could report these references on your new web site.

I'm still puzzled by the argument that recognition by both the ACT and the federal government are primary references.  I'd be interested in your viewpoint about this.

I'd also think about material that was on the previous article that was of no interest to readers in Kentucky, such as names of the staff, including the complete list of names of ministers.  Learning that Kippax has a kitchen, has preschool classes on Thursday, and the building was used for a concert, is pretty much indiscriminate information = not encyclopedic.

I think the AfD problem here is that people are questioning churches on the definition of notability in WP:N, ""worthy of notice"" without being able to articulate or quantify their objection.  Note the argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchcliff Bluffs United Church that the church there was WP:RUNOFTHEMILL.  The argument is bogus, because the closest example in the essay is a bank that has been in the news five times in 30 years because of being robbed, whereas the church in question could be expected to have mentions, or more, in 500 articles in the last 90 years.  But I think the attitude is real.    "