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 Draftify. This AFD is frankly, a mess; it would seem to be obvious that there is the possibility of a useful article here but this one is not it; thus draftifying for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congregational Churches in Leicester[edit]

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

[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)

A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Congregationalism in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This was closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was reverted following a request by the nominator.Djflem (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein, a decision overturned by deletion review, but with statement that a new AFD would be fine on 29 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus

It was followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, opened 30 January, which ~~is ongoing as of 12 February~~ closed as draftify/move to draft as of February 22, 2020 (see below note).

It's worth making a note to the closing administrator that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, which bears almost identical similarities to this article, closed as draftify/move to draft for the reason(s) similarly noted below. --Dmehus, 22 February 2020

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

--Doncram (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (updated 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

NOTE:This was non-admin closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was self-reverted following a discussion about it being a BADNAC. 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

off-topic
I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but: Having multiple AfDs simultaneously open on related but different articles is fine. The outcomes may differ due to the differences between the articles (and each article should receive sufficient individual consideration unless there is a clear-cut case to bundle). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of List of Baptist churches in Leicester and Congregational Churches in Leicester. I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying. Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

I personally consider this disruptive/wasteful of editor attention, and it is worse because notice was not given. I suppose all comments here should be copied to the others and vice versa? Why not just let one AFD be settled, first. Please do not open any more. --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but:

Having multiple AfDs simultaneously open on related but different articles is fine. The outcomes may differ due to the differences between the articles (and each article should receive sufficient individual consideration unless there is a clear-cut case to bundle). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of List of Baptist churches in Leicester and Congregational Churches in Leicester.
I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying.

Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable entries. Also WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite specific part of policy and explain how you are applying it?Djflem (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Certainly fulfills the first statement made in WP:LISTPURP:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Article may be Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not really?Djflem (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only information value here is as a directory of Methodist churches. That’s not valuable or an accepted reason per WP:NOTDIR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not valuable is a Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT argument. Wikipedia:NOTDIR says that Wikipedia articles are not "Simple listings" without context information and that information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. There is room in this article for adding prose to annotated list.Djflem (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename List of Congregational churches in Leicester, per WP:CSC Common selection criteria states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

So, as per the nominator and another contributor's "no notable entries", which exactly fits the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Congregationalism in Leicester or a prose Congregational churches in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it literally gives two examples where it suggests lists that do fit the criteria, of which there are many, which is clearly a positive use of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.Djflem (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two examples which provide detailed non-directory information, unlike this article. I don’t see your point with the essay that remarks, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it because it says: comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The two provided in the guideline are very good existing examples of annotated lists, which this has the potential to be. It is very clear Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Then draftify it and work on it. You’re applying essays on wiki philosophies, whereas notability guidelines and WP:NOT policies suggest that the list article shouldn’t exist. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since quotes were requested in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, here are some from policies and guidelines.
From the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
— WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Wikipedia articles are not: ... 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
— WP:NOTDIR

From the guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that you already previously quoted:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
— WP:CSC

WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention directory in AfD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more specific considerations that pertain to this AfD than the broad sweeping statements above. The bold is mine:

From: guideline Wikipedia:LISTPURP#1The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.

From: guideline Wikipedia:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.

From: policy Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.

From: essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Wikipedia has no deadline.

Any specific relevant, detailed, pertinent quotes that you feel are relevant are welcome. Keep in mind that "valuable/useful" information is subjective, there is no policy that any item on a list has to be notable, and NOT DIR provides for lists with prose explanations of its items.Djflem (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:

Sure, where we disagree on the MOS guideline LISTPURP#1 is whether this list is a valuable information source; I don’t think this list is one.
You seem to have misunderstood CSC#2: your quote from CSC#2 describes why they're created, and the guideline immediately suggests not creating the list in the following sentence.
DIR#7 is explicitly saying that all WP lists should have context, not that all lists with context should be on WP. The WP:NOT policy rules out cases, it does not say anything about inclusion.
Essays are individual editor opinions. In particular, SURMOUNTABLE is very very general.

The clear superseding uncontested fact is that the article is explicitly ruled out by policy NOTDIR#6. Unless new sources demonstrate that the intersection of “Congregational churches” and “churches in Leicester” is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs) 02:07, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on WP:CSC#2
WP:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example...Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. Where does it suggest, as you claim, that these article should not be created? It doesn't. FYI, this is an example of the situation being referred to:Mayor of London, which is a parent article & subsequent list.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Can you please identify the parent article into which this list better placed? Because that is what the the guideline says, NOT that stand-alone lists shouldn't be created.Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I don't think this list should exist at all by WP:NOTDIR#6. But supposing it didn't violate that policy, notice that there are multiple parent articles. Pick the closest one. If Congregational churches in Leicester was a prose article, then that could contain a list. If not, then Leicester. If neither of these two exist, then Leicestershire. And so on. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Please identify the multiple parent articles, or simply the best one and explain why you think this list should be merged into it. Thank-you. (WP:DIR#6 is discussed below).Djflem (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Read my comment. You'll see three of them and you'll see that I don't think the list should be merged into any of them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] So then we agree, carefully considering whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article, there is no appropriate parent article. Therefore, as the policy clearly states, the stand-alone list is appropriate.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Your second sentence is entirely false unless you choose to misread non-violation as acceptance, ignore that WP:CSC is not a policy, and ignore that the stand-alone list is inappropriate by the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on WP:CSC#2

WP:CSC#2Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example...Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.

Where does it suggest, as you claim, that these article should not be created? It doesn't. FYI, this is an example of the situation being referred to:Mayor of London, which is a parent article & subsequent list.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify the parent article into which this list better placed? Because that is what the the guideline says, NOT that stand-alone lists shouldn't be created.Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this list should exist at all by WP:NOTDIR#6. But supposing it didn't violate that policy, notice that there are multiple parent articles. Pick the closest one. If Congregational churches in Leicester was a prose article, then that could contain a list. If not, then Leicester. If neither of these two exist, then Leicestershire. And so on. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the multiple parent articles, or simply the best one and explain why you think this list should be merged into it. Thank-you. (WP:DIR#6 is discussed below).Djflem (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment. You'll see three of them and you'll see that I don't think the list should be merged into any of them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So then we agree, carefully considering whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article, there is no appropriate parent article. Therefore, as the policy clearly states, the stand-alone list is appropriate.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence is entirely false unless you choose to misread non-violation as acceptance, ignore that WP:CSC is not a policy, and ignore that the stand-alone list is inappropriate by the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#7
WP:DIR#7: A thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted. Otherwise descriptions with RS about the items in the list would have been added making it a annotated list. The policy cited says simple lists are not Wikipedia, but that annotated lists are Wikipedia. This has been clearly demonstrated at a similar AfD for Methodist churches in Leicester, where, indeed, information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information as sourced prose has been included.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Again, DIR#7 excludes simple lists but does not say that all annotated lists are acceptable. Not violating DIR#7 but violating DIR#6 is still a problem. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] We discuss what a guideline does say, not what it does not say. See below for DR#6:Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yes, so talking about DIR#7 is pointless. It doesn't say that this article belongs as you seem to suggest. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#7

WP:DIR#7: A thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted. Otherwise descriptions with RS about the items in the list would have been added making it a annotated list. The policy cited says simple lists are not Wikipedia, but that annotated lists are Wikipedia. This has been clearly demonstrated at a similar AfD for Methodist churches in Leicester, where, indeed, information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information as sourced prose has been included.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, DIR#7 excludes simple lists but does not say that all annotated lists are acceptable. Not violating DIR#7 but violating DIR#6 is still a problem. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss what a guideline does say, not what it does not say. See below for DR#6:Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so talking about DIR#7 is pointless. It doesn't say that this article belongs as you seem to suggest. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#6
WP:DIR#6: Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization to which you make reference when citing WP:DIR#6:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. You seem to be suggesting that the following lists, similar in title & scope, and other like, should be deleted. They appear to be very encyclopedic: List of demolished churches in the City of London, List of Catholic churches in the United States, List of Catholic churches in India List of new churches by George Gilbert Scott in the English Midlands List of new churches by George Gilbert Scott in the East of England List of Catholic churches in Salvador, Bahia List of Anglican churches in Melbourne List of new churches by George Gilbert Scott in the English Midlands List of churches destroyed in the Great Fire of London and not rebuilt List of Church of England churches in Thurrock Greek Orthodox churches in New South Wales List of Coptic Orthodox churches in Australia List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southwest England Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it?Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed culturally significant phenomenon as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either. Drawing up a list of other cross-categorizations and asking for comparisons is an exercise in futility. AfD is not the place for “oh but this other article exists!” As you also point out, NOTDIR#6 allows for encyclopedic cross-categorization. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. There’s nothing more to really debate if one can’t demonstrate that this particular class of churches in Leicester is culturally significant. An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Clarification to An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine: such an article could certainly exist if it was a properly sourced prose article. There's no properly referenced material here worth merging anywhere though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] You are welcome to produce a target article for this list, which actually is a basis for it, should you decide to do so. A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE would have demonstrated that there are RS, some of which are in the list itself.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I sure you are aware that User:MarkH21 does not get to decide what is culturally significant. See: WP:LISTN, which states: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I do not get to decide, but that's irrelevant. There needs to be evidence given here that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is a culturally significant cross-categorization. Might I remind you that Wikipedia policies supersede Wikipedia guidelines. Plus LISTN literally mentions and defers to NOTDIR#6 for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Was simple responding to your claim Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed "culturally significant phenomenon" as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either., in which you are deciding what is culturally significant. Let's leave it to this RS: "The ancient borough: Protestant Nonconformity: A History of the County of Leicester: Volume 4". Victoria County History. 1958. pp. 390–394. Retrieved January 11, 2020. The Congregational chapel in Bond Street was founded in 1800...., which incidentally, brings the the list over the the general notability guidelines, making this AfD moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) I can't have an opinion on what is or isn't culturally significant? Re GNG, I don't see how giving one reliable listing of Congregational churches demonstrates significant coverage from multiple reliable sources of the topic "Congregational churches in Leicester". GNG (a guideline) also does absolutely nothing to dispel any concerns about violating DIR#6 (a policy). — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] As one hopes you are fully aware (otherwise I would suggest recusing yourself) Wikipedia:GNG are the basis for deciding many AfDs. And yes, you are welcome to your opinion about cultural significance, but it's just that, an opinion, based in Wikipedia:I just don't like it, a non-valid argument, which so far is your claim about DIR#6. If you would like to brush off arguments because they come from guidelines and are not policies, I would suggest that you confine your comments to strict policy-based ones and not your POV interpretations.Djflem (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Satisfying WP:GNG is generally suitable for inclusion only when policies are not violated. Anyone can judge here that the arguments presented for how "Congregational Churches in Leicester" is exactly in the same vein as the explicit example from WP:NOTDIR#6 of "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". However, your accusations of POV editing and ignoring policy is now firmly in the realm of unfounded accusations and personal attacks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] WP:LISTN states: (bold mine) There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Please be mindful that Wikipedia:Consensus is not only a policy it is a pillar.Djflem (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on WP:NOTDIR#6

WP:DIR#6: Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia:Overcategorization to which you make reference when citing WP:DIR#6:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. You seem to be suggesting that the following lists, similar in title & scope, and other like, should be deleted. They appear to be very encyclopedic:

Would the consolidation of List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, and Methodist churches in Leicester, etc. into Churches in Leicester, or List of churches in Leicester (w/ appropriate demomination sub-headers) alleviate your concerns about what you perceive as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? I believe it would be too long, but that would address the issue, wouldn't it?Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any reference to overcategorization, since this again isn’t a category. Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed culturally significant phenomenon as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either. Drawing up a list of other cross-categorizations and asking for comparisons is an exercise in futility. AfD is not the place for “oh but this other article exists!” As you also point out, NOTDIR#6 allows for encyclopedic cross-categorization. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.

There’s nothing more to really debate if one can’t demonstrate that this particular class of churches in Leicester is culturally significant.

An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification to An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine: such an article could certainly exist if it was a properly sourced prose article. There's no properly referenced material here worth merging anywhere though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to produce a target article for this list, which actually is a basis for it, should you decide to do so. A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE would have demonstrated that there are RS, some of which are in the list itself.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sure you are aware that User:MarkH21 does not get to decide what is culturally significant. See: WP:LISTN, which states:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get to decide, but that's irrelevant. There needs to be evidence given here that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is a culturally significant cross-categorization. Might I remind you that Wikipedia policies supersede Wikipedia guidelines. Plus LISTN literally mentions and defers to NOTDIR#6 for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was simple responding to your claim Several of those, such as Catholic churches in the United States, are indeed "culturally significant phenomenon" as accepted by NOTDIR#6. Some others maybe shouldn’t have their own articles either., in which you are deciding what is culturally significant. Let's leave it to this RS: "The ancient borough: Protestant Nonconformity: A History of the County of Leicester: Volume 4". Victoria County History. 1958. pp. 390–394. Retrieved January 11, 2020. The Congregational chapel in Bond Street was founded in 1800...., which incidentally, brings the the list over the the general notability guidelines, making this AfD moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

I can't have an opinion on what is or isn't culturally significant? Re GNG, I don't see how giving one reliable listing of Congregational churches demonstrates significant coverage from multiple reliable sources of the topic "Congregational churches in Leicester". GNG (a guideline) also does absolutely nothing to dispel any concerns about violating DIR#6 (a policy). — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one hopes you are fully aware (otherwise I would suggest recusing yourself) Wikipedia:GNG are the basis for deciding many AfDs. And yes, you are welcome to your opinion about cultural significance, but it's just that, an opinion, based in Wikipedia:I just don't like it, a non-valid argument, which so far is your claim about DIR#6. If you would like to brush off arguments because they come from guidelines and are not policies, I would suggest that you confine your comments to strict policy-based ones and not your POV interpretations.Djflem (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfying WP:GNG is generally suitable for inclusion only when policies are not violated. Anyone can judge here that the arguments presented for how "Congregational Churches in Leicester" is exactly in the same vein as the explicit example from WP:NOTDIR#6 of "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". However, your accusations of POV editing and ignoring policy is now firmly in the realm of unfounded accusations and personal attacks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN states: (bold mine)

Please be mindful that Wikipedia:Consensus is not only a policy it is a pillar.Djflem (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Congregational churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Surely some of these are list-item notable. It does not require an AFD (and I think opening an AFD is unhelpful, especially without giving notice elsewhere) to propose a merge. I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS ABOVE THAT NONE OF THE ITEMS ARE NOTABLE OR LIST-ITEM-NOTABLE. I also do not believe that religion is "special" in Leicester and oppose creating a merged article about all types of churches in Leicester. --Doncram (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) This wasn't a proposed merge. 2) There is no need to open AfDs sequentially after others conclude; it is perfectly acceptable to open multiple related AfDs that are not clear-cut cases for WP:MULTIAFD. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Methodist AFD sort of proves that editor attention can round up sources on churches in Leicester, and that some will turn out to be notable. Editor fatigue causes less info to emerge on this one about Congregational ones; that is the only difference here. Merge the ones that can be shown to be notable (or merge them all and let editors at the List of Congregational churches decide to delete all or most); leave a redirect behind with edit history intact so later editors can do more research on others. The Congregational churches have more commonality with the Congregational churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Congregational churches are sensibly discussed together, not with hodgepodge of other church types in Leicester. Merge to the list of churches of same denomination in England, not to some false topic (no reader interest, little commonality) of all churches in Leicester; we don't want to start a zillion "all churches in city X" articles wherever there are a few that are notable. I do resent having to write this out in multiple parallel AFDs. --Doncram (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[In the parallel Baptist AFD, MarkH21 replied as follows, and I gave further reply below. The duplication is aggravating, but I think the deletion nominator wants us to copy over the same stuff to each AFD, but with emphasis not to copy selective passages, but rather to copy over entire exchanges. [Update: I am notified they did not want stuff copied over; i misunderstood their objection to stuff copied which did not include back-and-forth, as worse. Anyhow, points made here are relevant for this AFD. Don't edit my comments.] --Doncram (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)] --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC):[reply]

Other's comment:

Sure, merge-able information can be added to any AfD during the course of the actual discussion, but one shouldn't argue for a merge before anything worth merging is in the article. I don't doubt that some Baptist church in Leicester could be notable and belong in another article. If that isn't added to this article before the AfD closes, deletion will not prevent that from being added to the correct article afterwards. If you look at the article right now, there is no referenced content worth merging. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My reply:

You're agreeing that some of these are likely to be notable. I and others are not wanting to play game now of pulling up info right now for you in multiple AFDs, and actually sources brought up in some of the other AFDs probably provide info about some of the Baptist [or Congregational] ones. As we've discussed elsewhere wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP but you are explicitly acting like it is for cleanup. You're ignoring fact that outright deletion would remove the candidate list of churches which might be notable (individually, or list-item-wise), that some other editor thought were notable, and would maybe delete some sources and some context. The existence/closure of the AFD should be noted at the merger target article, and future editors can find their way to the candidate list even if it is merged/redirected. We are obligated to consider alternatives for deletion and there is this good one here, so there is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My comment here was deleted and I have now restored it; it is relevant to this AFD too. --Doncram (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you copied my comment without quotes before, as if I made the comment here myself, I reverted it. You insist on me repeating myself. My arguments have nothing to do with AFDISFORCLEANUP which I agree would be wrong. You seem to have misunderstood my point. Of course, a BEFORE search and referenced material not in the article is the basis of "keep" vs "not keep". My point was that if a topic is already deemed "not keep" then the debate between "delete" and "merge" is about whether there is referenced merge-able material in the existing article. In these particular cases, I do not agree that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is ~~not~~ a notable subject – that's why I then focused on merge-able content in the article. You seemed to agree that you misunderstood on your talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete/partial merge~~ Wikipedia is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have (temporarily) struck the above by Reywas92 as double-dipping is not permitted in AfD discussions. Please self-edit: strike as you see fit.Djflem (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to strike the entire comment. Pinging @Reywas92:. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, there are three of these lists up and I missed that I already voted here after commenting on the others. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to to the discussion and specify your policy based reasons, otherwise the comment is Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE & Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE Djflem (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

Draftify for improvements According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for hte potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable.. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and this group is not itself notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTN One of the accepted reasons (not a requirement: meaning there are more accepted reasons), why a list topic is considered notable is that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source, as this list and its entries have.Djflem (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the debate on this page seems to be whether the page meets WP:LIST. I consider that it does - the sources currently in the aritcle indicate there have been plenty of books, etc. written on congregational churches in Leicester itself that contitute reliable sources, and this meets the criteria in WP:LISTN - ie.:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

And to satisfy those who think there hasn't been enough discussion of reliable sources, there are plenty in the notes to the article already (even though they need to be better incorporated into the article itself), and a quick check of sources indicates that there is likely to be other sources discusisng congregational churches in Leicester itself and their effect on society, e.g. Rimmington's helpful set of historical articles such as this one.

Yes, the article is a mess and needs significant cleanup, but that is not a reason to delete. It should be kept in good faith to allow improvement. At worst, the article should be draftified and it should be specifically noted in the closure that the editor is allowed to redraft. Bookscale (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are plenty of reliable sources covering this topic as shown in the sources section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic easily passes WP:LISTN by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the relevant volume of the Victoria County History. As the list provides both information and a basis for future development, it satisfies WP:LISTPURP too and the nomination's contrary claim is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, this is the one source that has significant coverage on "Baptist churches in Leicester" as a whole. The other sources presented are for individual churches and not the group as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came here from the other two lists. This list fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lightburst, you can't just apply the same reasoning without properly considering the article and the sources that are available. The consensus on this one seems to be this is more easily fixed and there are even more sources than the Methodist churches one. Bookscale (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I don’t see such a consensus here, but NOTDIR is independent of that anyways. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - that's nonsense. You've really got it in for these articles don't you? Bookscale (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing DIR#6 is vague because it in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the policy Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another clear one is cognitive dissonance. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which is filled with exactly the same type of lists.Djflem (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been more activity at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester. About Congregational churches, someone asserted above that more sourcing is available than for Methodist ones (despite 2 Rimington articles available there), but I don't see any online source that is at all helpful here, beyond providing trivial info of address or random useless facts. This remains a wp:NOTDIR-violating list-article. I don't see any assertion that any single Congregational church has a listed building or otherwise has any merit to be mentioned in List of Congregational churches (which I probably argued should be a merge target above). Now I lean towards outright "Delete". I can't directly evaluate the stated off-line sources, but can only note: if there was any source that had anything useful, it should have been used to improve this article by now.

I think any potential closer should close the Methodist one first, or maybe wait for someone else to close it. If that AFD is closed "delete" or "draftify" or "merge", then this AFD about Baptist ones should be closed similarly. The case for "Keep" is way less strong here AFAICT. I see no serious evidence that any source is helpful at all; there has been nothing added to change this article from being a list of random places violating wp:NOTDIR. By the way, the "Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place" source is just literally a catalog, a directory, of no help. --Doncram (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doncram wrote in screaming capitals that other editors should not comment here but appears to have taken special dispensation to do in order to entangle the destiny of three distinct AfDs, and suggest what happens at one somehow be applied here and elsewhere. The well-known fact is that all unbundled AfDs (as was pointed out earlier) are separate and can and should have their own outcomes and that any closer must abide by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

Is that a personal attack against me? Originally, there were 3 parallel AFDs, to which I objected. Then I thought they were all closed. Then I saw a new one on the Methodist article. There, in caps, yes, I was asking people not to start another set of parallel AFDs. However in fact the the Congregrational and Baptist ones never closed (or maybe they were closed and were reopened, like happened to the Methodist one before it was re-closed, before a new one was opened about it, i don't know.) Whatever, this has been a long dragged out mess. The fact that 3 of these are open still re-affirms my original belief that opening multiple parallel AFDs was not helpful. --Doncram (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not, no offense. I will point out that that your edit was placed immediately under notifications and links that were available at the time you made it, so the information as to the status of the AfDs was available. It's a close call, but they were not bundled (and don't believe they should have been). I do believe that entangling the three will only further drag the matter & suggest you don't if avoiding making a more of a mess is your legitimate concern.Djflem (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic now. But your point is that I should have checked further and not made the mistake of misunderstanding the status of the other AFDs, when I wrote that at the Methodist AFD. Okay, whatever, my bad, and I already acknowledged that I misunderstood that. Just to be clear, though, I did NOT write anywhere that "that other editors should not comment here", as I have been accused of, here. These AFDs are linked, anyhow, including by comments here complaining about comments made elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Despite the claim and attempt to disparage, this list and NOT RANDOM or indiscriminate. It is tightly focused and finite.

There are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the Wikipedia:Verifiability they provided to page. Several editors believe satisfies. :Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Currently only those sources which are online are given used. Since such coverage exists online, it can be presumed that there are more sources which are not digitalized including those are offered in source list.

Mapped - University of Leicester Archheology and Ancient History Mapping Faith and Place is indeed a database created by the University of Leicester (Archeology Department) as the result of a broader project to record all (types of) churches in Leicester, which clearly establishes the interest making it academic, encyclopedic, and notable.

As per criteria, Wikipedia should not contain indiscriminate lists and only certain types of list should be exhaustive. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. This list is exhaustive, and common sense is keeping the complete list, which is not likely to change.

Though it not necessary that there be any blue links, a common standard used for lists on Wikipedia is that when a list has at least one blue link the whole list is kept, a practice not being applied here. There are entries which would merit their own article (not shown as red links, but could be).

Wikipedia:NOTPAPER and inclusion of this material not in any way undermine Wikipedia's goal to document human knowledge, but rather supports it.

Citing DIR violation without a explanation is vague and frankly useless to the discussion because this list is NOT a list or repository of loosely associated topics; is not genealogical entry; a telephone directory; a directories, directory entry, electronic program guide, or resources for conducting business; a sales catalogue, a simple listing without context. DIR#6 is in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the Wikipedia:GNG, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another very clear guideline is disingenuous. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which contains exactly the same type of lists, despite what appears to be willful attempts to ignore them. (Any comparison of this list with something like Chinese restaurants in Atlanta is nonsensical garble.)

Wikipedia:Merging into an article List of Churches in Leicester or Churches in Leicester (currently a re-direct) (which would dispel any concerns about DIR#6) would produce a page with over 350 entries, which would then lead to Wikipedia:SPLIT. There is no reason to go through that process, when the split has already taken place.

NOT KEEP is not a AfD discussion option and does not, should not, and cannot be taken to mean DELETE.

Community consensus per Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES states that a list such this is kept because it is limited in scope, based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, has verifiable content, and has a logical reason for its construction.Djflem (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To dispell further misunderstandings in the above comment:

Finite is irrelevant here, indiscriminate doesn’t mean infinite...
Not violating NOTDIR 1-5 and 7-8 doesn't mean anything for a keep argument when the other arguments are about NOTDIR6
This article is a clear application of NOTDIR6 (a policy that supersedes LISTN and GNG which are guidelines) which says Wikipedia articles are not: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". This is the same type of article as those examples.
Nobody says “Not keep” = “delete”, and “not keep” certainly doesn’t mean “keep”.

The repeated mischaracterization of another editor’s actions is also getting tiring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. Finite is relevant in that does indeed contribute to the fact that the list is "well-defined" and yes, "indiscriminate" doesn’t mean infinite, it means done at random or without careful judgement, which is not the case with this list.
Slapping a random NOTDIR on a page doesn't mean anything for a delete argument when it is indiscriminate.
.Real or feigned ignorance of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines strikes me as being ill-formed, and demonstrates an unawareness of the how policies and guidelines (rules and their application, theories and their practices, laws and jurisprudence, etc) interact/are intertwined at Wikipedia and in the real world. That is tiring and tedious.
. KEEP is an AfD option, NOT KEEP is not an AfD option.Djflem (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Delete as failing WP:NOTDIR, specifically, criterion #6, WP:AOAL, and WP:CLN. This is, for all intents and purposes, a list, not an article, so the WP:GNG arguments simply don't apply. Draftification would allow those favouring "keep" or "merge" to decide on a potential merger target and initiate merger discussions on the destination talk page. Or, alternatively, to decide to refocus the scope of this list into an article to which WP:GNG would thus apply instead of ultra-short stub-class/sub-stub-class list, which this is. As such, it fails the above, as others have noted. Doug Mehus T·C 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At least read the most basic part of GNG when referring to it: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Also—to everyone in this discussion—when possible please adhere to MOS:LISTGAP. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  It is a good observation to note that a page tagged as a Wikipedia:List-class article is indeed an list and not article. One would be wise to also note that at WP:DIR that #6 , like all target points, is clearly proceed by Wikipedia articles are not: and does not speak to lists at all is in and of itself mute on the point and does NOT preclude lists of this type. It would also be wise to consider Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which provides the information as to how to proceed with lists, which WP#6 does not. As clearly stated the at the incorrectly dismissed Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. DIR#6 merely touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to disregard the guidance offered is not wise and does not appear to demonstrate a clear understanding of the purpose of policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
  J947, But this is a list; the crucial criterion here is WP:CLN/WP:LISTN and WP:AOAL, which this list fails miserably. It should be draftified. Doug Mehus T·C 12:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how WP:CLN (and its component)WP:AOAL, which discuss the synergies.between the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is relevant here (particularly since there is no correpondent cat or navtemplate). This list does not contravene Wikipedia:LISTN in any way.Djflem (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled that this has created such a wide discussion. All that is needed, as is the case for many other places, is that there is an article Churches in Leicester that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article. --Bduke (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: There are no churches in this list (or the others at the time of nomination) with their own article, so deletion makes sense. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Cathedral, but I agree that is not enough. So, OK, delete, but if there comes a time when there are a few more, such a list would be OK. --Bduke (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Cathedral is in Anglican churches in Leicester, not this list (Congregational Churches in Leicester). There are also others like a few notable entries in List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester that could be merged into a Churches in Leicester, but there are no churches in this list (Congregational Churches in Leicester) with their own articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are others in Anglican churches in Leicester. There should just be one article (Churches in Leicester) listing churches that have an article. Congregational Churches in Leicester, Anglican churches in Leicester and any similar ones should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out above, lists containing "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list. While such bluelinks are not a required by Wikipedia:SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, or Wikipedia:LISTN, it is correctly observed that it does follow Wikipedia's common practice to keep those lists which do have blue-links (as opposed to frowned-upon red links), as is the case with the aforementioned pages. This now contains the independently notable, blue-linked Clarendon Park Congregational Church, thus bringing in line with other list-articles and thus negating original claim of the nominator (who stated that this is "a list with no notable entries") and the concern/rationale expressed above. Djflem (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the article hasn’t negated any deletion argument. It just means that a potential Churches of Leicester article should have one more entry. If lists containing "bluelinks" to articles with items which are independently notable is a reason to keep the whole list was remotely true, we should have tons of singleton lists with one notable entry, like say Churches dedicated to Saint Peter in the Vatican City. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it was important enough to state in the nomination: "a list with no notable entries" as an argument. That has been negated. ~~Please see the guidelines regarding lists for you other claim.~~ Djflem (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC) (07:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

It was an observation to highlight the situation of the article, not an argument. Your creation of a single entry, seemingly motivated to invalidate that initial observation, doesn’t affect any of the previous arguments made here nor Bduke‘s argument which clearly calls for deletion even with the presence of a notable entry.

Any fixation or wikilawyering of the original nomination wording is pointless because there are plenty of other rationales and arguments raised and clearly explained during the course of discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no essential difference between a List, where the items get some information added as well as a mere name, and a combination article, which is usually written in paragraph form. It's just a question of format. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, which is why WP:NOTDIR applying to articles obviously includes list articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipefdia's policies and guidelines and the above discussion before repeating your claim.Djflem (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I concur completely with @MarkH21 and DGG:. Hopefully a closing administrator can put this AfD out of its misery and draftify, failing deletion, this list article as there is no consensus for retaining it as-is in Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 21:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a different tune than the claim made on 20 Feb: "This is, for all intents and purposes, a list, not an article, so the WP:GNG arguments simply don't apply.", isn't it? Djflem (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester I would argue that AOAL#8 might be satisfied but as noted unlike parish churches, congregation churches are probably less likely to be notable. Again putting all the churches in List of churches in Leicester might be a good idea but such articles might be too long and the lists have good sourcing as is (noting that this doesn't appear to be a standard list article). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist, if only to fix something borked with the original NAC close and re-open. No prejudice given to closing this "early" due to the age.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with the other nomination, this seems like a clear NOTDIRECTORY matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' because it needs improvements. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2020 (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.