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 Move to draft for further development. There is a clear consensus that among participants that regardless of the name of the article this is indeed a list. However, WP:LISTN itself notes a lack of consensus on notability for some kinds of lists so it is unsurprising that this has been so controversial. Those arguing this topic is notable point to some elements of WP:LISTN such as the fact that it has a defined criteria for inclusion (which need not only include notable topics). Some keep editors also suggest there is sourcing available that discusses this topic as a set which would further suggest notability. Those arguing against notability contest that sourcing and also suggest that this article runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Over the course of this extended discussion a consensus has emerged to move this article to draft. This will allow for any of several outcomes including for additional sources to be added demonstrating this article is indeed notable, for content to be merged into other applicable articles, and/or for the article to be reformulated into a new (and hopefuly notable) topic (such as Methodism in Leicester). While not strictly mentioned by editors, I will be placing an WP:AfC tag on the draft and would strongly recommend (though I cannnot require) that it be approved by an uninvolved AfC participant before being moved back to article space. Note I have read the talk page here, the first AfD, Jo-Jo's DRV close, as well as the related AfDs on Baptism and Congregationalism. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist churches in Leicester[edit]

Methodist churches in Leicester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per the prior overturned deletion: the guideline WP:LISTN states "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Methodist churches in Leicester has not received substantial independent coverage even if individual churches may have. I do not find the lack of a current consensus on how to handle "List of Xs of Ys" reason enough to not delete. The article should be considered on its own merit as the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF related does not mean it itself meets the requirements. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Overturn and allow new AFD, 22 January 2020, see deletion review. Delete, 8 January 2020, see discussion.

• Links: first AfD, DRV for first AfD, related AfD for Baptist churches in Leicester, related AfD for Congregational churches in Leicester. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DON'T ANYONE START PARALLEL/DUPLICATIVE AFDS OR DELETION REVIEWS ABOUT THE SIMILAR LISTS OF BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RESTATE OUR NEARLY IDENTICAL POSITIONS ABOUT THOSE. PLEASE ALLOW JUST ONE PROCEEDING TO FINISH. IT WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THEY CAN OPEN ANOTHER PROCEEDING, JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN. (HOPEFULLY THIS IS A LESSON LEARNED FROM FIRST ROUND OF THESE.) --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • What is the relationship of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, closed by User:Sandstein by "Delete" decision on 12 January, to this AFD. Was the article recreated after deletion, with just a tiny change in title (to use "churches" not "Churches")? Why does this article still exist, and why is this AFD going on? I thought this AFD was closed then reopened; it is instead a different AFD i guess. Could anyone pls. explain?--Doncram (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Doncram, the result of that AfD at DRV was to overturn the decision and restart the AfD using the same AfD URL, not the a new nomination or a relist of the existing AfD, as I understand it. If you look in this page's history, you'll see the original AfD, and the DRV closer restarted it. Doug Mehus T·C 21:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        No, this AFD is in fact a new deletion nomination started on 30 January, not a re-start of the old AFD. The old AFD started on 8 January and was closed "Delete" on 18 January. Then there was a deletion review which was closed 22 January with decision to "Overturn and allow new AFD". Okay, i guess the current article is in fact the one started way back in 2012, which on 8 January must have been named with "Churches", and which was renamed on 12 January, during the AFD. It was deleted (and Sandstein also correctly deleted the redirect from its old name). And implementing the "Overturn" it was in fact restored, at "churches" name.

        Confusing to me was the fact that the old AFD shows a redlink for Methodist Churches in Leicester, as if deletion was accomplished and not reversed. The redirect should have been restored, too, to avoid confusion. To remedy that I am right now re-creating a redirect from that old title to the new title.

• • • • Note when creating the redirect, i am overriding messages there:

        • • "06:52, 18 January 2020 Sandstein talk contribs deleted page Methodist Churches in Leicester (Delete redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester closed as delete (XFDcloser))"
          • "07:35, 12 January 2020 Djflem talk contribs moved page Methodist Churches in Leicester to Methodist churches in Leicester (per MOS:AT) (revert)"
      • Now, anyhow, should all the !votes and comments in the old AFD be considered part of this AFD? I am not sure if everyone who participated then has also re-stated their views or otherwise participated here. --Doncram (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There were just 2 participants in the old AFD who have not participated here (User:DGG and User:PenulisHantu). I just gave them notices at their Talk pages of this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In addition to the notability of the group (i.e. not that there are sources on the individual churches), this list falls under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6: (the exceptions to There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists per WP:LISTN). In particular, "Methodist churches in Leicester" is no different from the given example of "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" in NOTDIR#6, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the intersection of "Methodist churches" and "churches in Leicester" is a culturally significant phenomenon (the only permissible exception in NOTDIR#6). — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disappointing to see this here again. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business, whatever – past or present – regardless of their notability. It is not appropriate to have arbitrary combinations of qualifiers, with countless combinations of denominations, geographic areas, etc., listing places merely for their existence (or prior existence) when there is notability present. We should list those churches that are in fact notable or designated as historic, not any ever that have not been discussed as a group as a directory. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Doncram. If you want to write about Methodism in England (per Pontificalibus that's fine as a topic, not as a directory. Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Oxbow lakes in North-West Saskatchewan - the topic of Methodist churches in Leicester meets GNG. You are arguing for the current list in the article to be trimmed, which is a reasonable request but not an argument for deletion. In fact it would be easy to remove all the lists in the article and instead write prose using the existing sources because there is in-depth coverage there.----Pontificalibus 06:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEPHEY Easily passes GNG -- Djflem (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (!vote changed and added below 09:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Administrative note: I've taken the liberty of reformatting this section to more closely follow standard AfD conventions. Generally, each top-level bullet point is one user's comment, with commentary that applies specifically to that comment indented below the bullet point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
• Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
• Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
• Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
• Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
• Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a simple listing without context information and it contains information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose.
• Wikipedia:LISTN: This list fulfills this because as it is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, items in the list do not need to be independently notable, it is not a large list, it is informational, and 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.
• Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: The list follows the precedent of List of X churches in Y, of which there are likely hundreds, many of which are much more complex and cross-categorizational. as seen in Category:Lists of churches -- Djflem (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ignoring NOTDIR#6, ignoring that LISTN explicitly defers to NOTDIR#6, ignoring that not violating any other part of NOTDIR is irrelevant, and ignoring that “Other stuff exists” is an essay. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTDIR#6: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, is about categories and makes no mention of lists or articles and is not applicable. You are applying a section about categories to this page, which is not a category and for which no category exists. To do so is farfetched and not a policy-based argument.Djflem (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you’re completely misreading the policy. NOTDIR#6 is about articles and not categories. A cross-categorization is not necessarily a category. WP:NOTDIR literally says

Wikipedia articles are not... Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations... Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article

I’m done seeing your blatant misreadings of WP policies. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is as "culturally significant" as Anglican churches in Leicester, Baptist churches in Leicester,Catholic churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, all which Wikipedia have determined are notable.Djflem (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hasn’t “decided” on any of them; they’re all different; and the intersection of Anglican churches and churches in Leicester may indeed be culturally significant on its own merits because Leicester is the seat of an Anglican Diocese with an Anglican bishop, 1000 years of archdeacons (500 Roman Catholic & 500 Anglican), and an Anglican cathedral. But the Anglican cultural significance is unrelated to any potential cultural significance for the Methodist analogue. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the claim this has "information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose." Literally the whole list is indeed just bullet-pointed names of "simple listings without context information". Some are denoted as demolished or with a random fact, but this is not prose or notable context, just a directory of non-notable places. The large majority of other lists in the category are limited to churches that are notable or historic or otherwise not just for being a directory for any that have ever existed. Many may need clean-up too though. Reywas92^Talk 07:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passes GNG, plus Wesleyan Chapel, Bishop Street and Belgrave Hall Methodist Church are two items on list have or will their own entries, which has been a determining standard on Wikipedia for lists (& one cited by yourself if I recall correctly), for satisfying lists.Djflem (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus on how to assess the notability does not exist does not mean that the consensus is to keep them all regardless. Further, this AfD itself is part of the process of creating said consensus. Lastly all consensus can change over time. As for other stuff existing, the essay you linked literally says that it's not a valid argument for keeping it. Further WP:VALINFO is again not an argument. You have made the point that it's a list. We've pointed out it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Like I said last time, these are the barriers to being included not excluded. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as I've indicated elsewhere, an article on Methodist churches in Leicester is something that meets GNG because there are reliable sources that detail the history of Methodist churches specifically in Leicester (as a whole) (see, as only a couple of examples, Rimmington's article on 1918-39, and another one 1945-1980 and an extract from Victoria County History of Leicestershire on non-conforming churches. No doubt there are further sources that are not online (which I do not have time to research). Djflem is right about this meeting criteria (other than NOTDIR). To the extent there are concerns about that policy and the page being a potential directory and breaching Wikipedia standards, that can and should be addressed by the article being cleaned up (which I accept is needed), not by deletion. Bookscale (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rimmington papers are self-published by the local historical society, and the County History, which has been considered RS before, is not showing significant coverage. It includes four paragraphs which is a trivial mention in something that size. It could, with other sources to show significant coverage, be useful to establish an article on non-conforming churches in Leicester. WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument for inclusion, and I've only seen two types of sources brought, those showing the different churches exist (and a few may be worthy on an article), and those showing that Methodist churches have existed. As for NOTDIR, if it can't get past that, then it fails to be what Wikipedia is for, and fails to meet the barrier for inclusion. My argument the last time and this time is that if the notability of the group cannot be established to the point that it gets an article then, whether the article is a list or prose or a haiku, it should be deleted. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply wrong to discount the Rimmington papers as the "local historical society" and completely disregard them aside as reliable sources; that sort of comment really suggests you're not willing to put an open mind to this debate and what can be done to it. The Society Transactions (from where these papers are taken) are contained in a journal published by the University of Leicester, which has submission guidelines for articles, the journal is independent of the Methodist Church and the articles are thoroughly sourced.
I will say again, because AfD is not cleanup, this article can be rewritten to include the long history of Methodist churches in Leicester, where there is significant coverage and reliable sources. Bookscale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Userify or at least prune it of the list -- We cannot allow this article in its present form. Nevertheless, an article or Methodism in Leicestershire or even Methodism in Leicester might well be worth having, but this is not it: except an initial paragraph, it is merely a list of churches, which will need to be maintained as churches close or merge. The right place for that is a denominational website, where the church (denomination) will have an incentive to keep it up to date. The sources found by Bookscale are RS, which could well be used in such an article. Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society is the county archaeological society, whose articles will be refereed. It is not merely a local history society, of a kind whose publications can be of very uneven quality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All these Leicester church lists should be merged into a List of places of worship in Leicester, which may be split by postcode if this proves to produce a list of excessive length. Leicester postcodes run from LE1 to LE9, which would give nine lists each with a clearly defined purpose. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – or else deprecate WP:NOTDIR. I can't think of a more obvious example of NOTDIR than "List of all X in City Y". We are not a telephone book or a travel guide. Do we want to list all the pizza parlors in Leicester? All the people named Smith in Leicester? Sheesh. It's an encyclopedia. Levivich 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - except there is notability on Methodist Churches in Leicester and reliable sources covering that. The article can be fixed up. Bookscale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bookscale: Although it doesn't have "list" in its title, this article is now and always has been a list. I don't doubt that it could, instead, be an article, about the history of Methodism or maybe just Methodist churches in Leicester or Leicestershire, or some other kind of spin-off of Methodist Church of Great Britain. If It were WP:TNTed or WP:HEYed I'd consider changing my !vote on those grounds, but even if this list is deleted, I don't see why a new page with the same title couldn't be re-created and used for an article (rather than a list). Levivich 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:TNTTNT - deletion and recreation is not appropriate if this is a valid topic as we’d lose the page history. You are arguing here for WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.--Pontificalibus 06:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I'm arguing for the page, with it's history (which is not worth keeping) to be deleted, because a list of churches doesn’t meet GNG. The topic of the history of Methodism in Leicester might meet GNG, and if so, a new article could be recreated after this one is deleted. The new article shouldn't have the history of this list. Levivich 17:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why we’d have a history article without a broader article such as the current title. In any case such a recreation would be as a direct consequence of this article’s deletion and the work done on it prior to deletion to find sources. Therefore deleting the history wouldn’t correctly attribute all those who contributed to the new article.--Pontificalibus 18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Methodist churches in Leicester is obviously a notable topic as demonstrated by the current sourcing. All the delete !voters are viewing this as a list article and invoking NOTDIR, ignoring the notability of the topic. Deletion and recreation of a prose article is not viable because we would not preserve the edit history which contains significant contributions of sources etc. I would happily trim the current list in the article, perhaps moving it to the talk page, and begin re-working the article with additional prose and new sectioning. However I am reluctant to do that while it is still at AfD. Decide it's a notable topic already and people can get to work improving it and addressing the NOTDIR concerns.----Pontificalibus 06:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if you include me in the list of voters, but my argument has been on the notability. The prior AfD had more on that too. The issue is that the majority of keeps last time were arguments that since the churches exist we should have this list. The deletes here are the same people just annoyed that we have to run this again after a closure that was based on the consensus that it should be deleted and left deleted, deleted and draftified, or deleted and merged (where was not determined), and we're attempting to counter the same arguments that were made last time. Methodism in Leicester may be notable, this article, which even lacking the words List of in the title is still a list of the churches is not. As I stated in the last AfD I have no issue with it being changed into something else, but the AfD is based on what it is, not what it could be if changed (not improved). Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Jerrod Lycett, except that AfD is not cleanup. If the topic is notable, and the sources exist (and both of those are right), then even if the article is in a terrible shape, it should survive AfD, except where TNT applies, and what editors here are arguing is that it's not at that point. Pontificalibus makes a valid point about the history being kept because some of the sourcing on individual churches is quite good. Bookscale (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree that this list is notable. If the individual buildings are notable, create their articles. As is, this is a directory. Just curious, from the consensus from the last one that regrettably got overturned without proper notification to those of us involved, which option do you think was most suitable: Delete, delete and merger, or delete and draftify, because even at the overturn that was what was discussed. Keep was not the consensus. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it does have valid information but needs more prose content but the topic is notable as a book search will show and there is no valid reason for deletion if the topic is notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-this article is mainly of use to people who live in or near the city, or who are going for an extended visit. We need more articles with lists of important, historical buildings that have been demolished. Such knowledge turns a city into so much more than what Google Maps will give you. Yet a list of demolished buildings of no use to some 95% of Wikipedia simply because they have no chance to visit the demolished buildings.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a travel guide per policy. The use for people living in or visiting a city is completely irrelevant. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was already aware of that policy. The article is not written in a travel guide tone or format, and so does not violate the policy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the usefulness of an article to tourists or residents is completely irrelevant to keeping a WP article, and any argument to that effect is discouraged and unsupported by WP policy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge, either to List of Methodist churches or to Leicester. Note neither of those potential target articles are ever going to include much from this list, because it is stupid for Wikipedia to include non-encyclopedic material (e.g. "sold in 1953 for furniture storage in 1953,[4] now the Ecumenical Church of the Nativity[11]") This is clearly a list-article. It clearly does not meet standards required for list-articles, and instead is a directory-type list of compendium. Despite protestations otherwise, the only sources specifically about a supposedly general topic of Methodist churches in Leicester are local history catalogs, which do not establish notability of the topic. There exist local history catalogs everywhere. We absolutely do not want to have thousands of similar list-articles for churches in cities of Leicester's size (population 348,000). There is no sourcing asserting the topic of Methodist churches in this city is any more important than the same in other cities. I respectfully disagree with User:Pontificalibus's opposite view; the sources in the article are routine/predictable, not good enough, and all or most provide only trivial, non-encyclopedic info anyhow.

• Wikipedia's process of listing churches has been working well, with top-level world-wide list-articles now existing (see navlist Template:Lists of religious worship places). These are intended to include all churches seriously documented in a significant historic registry (e.g. Level II+ listed or higher in UK) or being a mega-church or otherwise seriously being documented. Only if a lot of development about a geographic area has been done, such that the number of churches in a large area (such as the United States as a whole, or the UK as a whole) has become too great, is it justified to split out a sublist.
• In the list there are one or a few individual churches which are individually Wikipdedia-notable; these should definitely be included in the world-wide List of Methodist churches and _possibly_ they might be mentioned in the Leicester article. Leave it to editors of the world-wide list-articles to consider revising their standards for list-item-notability to include any more there.
• Outright deletion would be simply WRONG, because we are obligated to seek good wp:ATDs, and here there is available the good alternative of redirecting/merging. This preserves editor contribution history (regarding material that is merged, and allowing for re-creation of the list-article if ever truly justified by new sources) as required by our standards. I cannot understand the several votes for DELETE, except for those editors wanting to overstate their true position in order to counter the overly extreme votes in the other direction. Delete voters User:MarkH21, User:Reywas92, User:Levivich, User:Peterkingiron, could you please strike/modify your policy-non-compliant votes. (The KEEP voters have similarly been too extreme IMHO, but frankly appear less amenable to being reasonable, IMO to changing their vote [revised--Doncram (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)])[reply]
• This has all been said before. The first AFD should have been closed with this decision, because this is by far the best-reasoned argument IMHO, rather than, essentially going with vote counting. Am I the only editor seeking a compromise? (I am not sure about that, but what I have pointed out is not disrespecting the developer(s) and is in fact between the two extremes.) --Doncram (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Doncram:, it's very unfair and not in good faith to imply that the keep !voters have been unreasonable and are not attempting compromise. Even on the keep side there is general acceptance that the article needs significant rewriting, we have put forward sources to redo the article so it does comply with Wikipedia policies, and in the case of Pontificalibus they have offered to do the work of rewriting. And I need to say again, the definition of the sources that have been put forward as "local history" is not true - they are reliable sources and are not "routine". See my comments above. Bookscale (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, I revised my statement to say that "Keep" voters appear less likely to be willing to change and choose the option I suggest, without saying that is unreasonable. Sorry for being a tad too negative/dismissive in a perhaps unfair way.

But a long time has gone on and the article has not been developed. It is more than fair now to remove the article by redirecting it; you will still have access to what was written before and you could still later try to produce a better version in user- or draft-space and seek approval to replace the redirect by MFD or RFC or otherwise.

• I simply don't see the sources as providing basis for a separate article on this too-narrow topic. You point to two works published/recognized only by the Trans. Leicestershire Archaeol. and Hist. Soc (and one other, previously discussed). That appears to me to be a local journal determined to catalog whatever a local author sets out to catalog in Leicester, whether or not there is anything distinctive/noteworthy about it. Note I am very aware that there are many local catalogs/inventories of trivialities of local history done by local governments, which are routine and absolutely do not bear copying into Wikipedia. Like if one town publishes its consultant report exhaustively detailing its perfectly normal sewer system, say, it is just not encyclopedic to put that detail into Wikipedia. If excessive detail happens to be available somewhere, just give a reference to the source and let any rare extremely interested reader follow the link.
• More specifically, Rimmington's "between World Wars one" includes local statistics which are not worth covering in the Leicester article, and seems to be only documenting national trends like the declining(?) "response to Methodism in the mining and quarrying communities [vs.] the membership increases in some manufacturing centres". It has no comparative data and identifies nothing different about Leicester, and includes statements emphasizing that, such as "What was true of the national leadership was true also of the local leadership in Leicestershire". You could possibly use the source to mention Leicester's local stats as an example of some national trends within the general article about Methodist Church of Great Britain, but it is not proper to copy the cataloging into Wikipedia just because more detailed cataloging happens to be available about this one place.
• Rimmington's 1945-1980 one is likewise about the national trend, with nothing distinctive to say about Leicester. Its abstract/summary is: "Methodism, with its circuit system of organisation and its reliance on local preachers, fared better in the post-1945 years than the older Nonconformist denominations. In Leicestershire, as elsewhere, [etc.]" (emphasis added).
• The four paragraphs in the history of Leicester County have already been properly dismissed above by another editor, and I evaluated it within the first AFD. It is relied upon in the current article which you agree is poor. It is the horrible source of trivialities such as one church having been "sold to be a furniture repository in 1953", with nothing to say about the church itself, which should NOT be put into Wikipedia. Like i said in the first AFD, perhaps one or two of the churches cataloged there could conceivably be mentioned in the "Leicester" or "List of Methodist churches" article, but for all or almost all it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to mention them at all.

I respect your efforts to argue here, User:Bookscale, but you simply have not established that a decent article could be written on this too-narrow topic where there is nothing exceptional at all to write about. I don't think you can do it successfully, but it remains open for you to try to create one later. --Doncram (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Doncram - (1) I think we're going to have to agree in good faith to disagree about the sources. It feels like the sources are being picked apart a bit too much to deny notability in a way that never happens on other AfDs. Another editor has explained above that Rimmington's articles are not just a "local journal", they are a county journal published by a University with strict requirements for submission. Rimmington's articles, for example, do describe in a sentence or so the founding of particular churches at particular times, which does not justify individual church articles but would be ok with a general article on Methodist churches in Leicester and their history more generally. (2) I get that this is a niche topic but I think there's enough here for an article. I appreciate you have not argued for deletion and are seeking a genuine compromise, and I'm grateful for that. However (and I'm speaking generally here, not at you) it does feel like I (and Djflem) are the ones who seem to be doing the heavy lifting on explaining why the article should be kept, but are still being asked to justify absolutely everything in a way that never happens on other AfDs. I have a real fear that even if there was an attempt at properly recreating the article (which editors here have expressed that they are very happy to do) the same editors who hate religious-themed articles (NB - I'm not talking about you at all, I'm thinking of some who participated in the last AfD including the one who said something explicitly to that effect) will come back and decry all notability no matter how hard you try. Bookscale (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Draftify fails WP:LISTN woefully; most of the listing of churches are unlinked churches, not even redlinks. Most of the "keep" arguments are vague waves and incorrect as lists, like navboxes and portals, are navigation aids. Thus, WP:GNG does not apply...full stop. This is, unquestionably, a list, regardless of how it is titled (i.e., List of Methodist churches in Leicester). There's nothing here worth keeping, so this should be (a) deleted, without prejudice to recreation as a pared down list of bluelinked Methodist churches in Leicester or, considering alternatives to deletion, (b) draftified. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Dmehus:, you clearly haven't read any of the material at all in this AfD about the sources that are available to justify why Methodist churches in Leicester is a topic that has been sufficiently covered in external sources elsewhere to justify a page, and the offer to rewrite the article to fix any notability problems, and the reasons for retaining the page history. Your comment ignores Wikipedia policy that individual items do not have to be notable of themselves, only the churches as a whole. The accusation that keep !votes are "vague" is quite simply a bad faith accusation. It would be helpful if you added something constructive to this discussion rather than accusations. Bookscale (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bookscale: I don’t see how Dmehus saying that an argument is vague is an example of assuming bad faith. That’s an editor‘s assessment of an argument, not another editor’s intentions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved Comment @Levivich, MarkH21, and Peterkingiron: and Doncram from the previous AfD make the most compelling, rational, and correct policy-based reasons for deletion, draftification/userification, or merge (which I'd prefer in that order) here. Djflem and Pontificalibus make references to WP:GNG, which is incorrect, and either, in part or in whole, the basis of their arguments. Doug Mehus T·C 01:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention that GNG cannot be used as grounds to keep an article that is in list form is simply wrong. If a topic passes GNG it's irrelevant whether the article exists as a list or prose. You might argue for a rewrite, but not deletion.----Pontificalibus 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting your point about arguing for a rewrite, which I completely agree is necessary, per WP:CLN and WP:AOAL and other policies, this rewriting of an unencyclopedic content should occur in Draft: namespace, which I've so endorsed. Doug Mehus T·C 15:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please see, and contribute to, thoughts about further rationalizing Wikipedia's lists of churches, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester#further lists to AFD after this AFD is closed: top-down vs. bottom-up. Brief version: "top-down-type" lists like "List of Methodist churches" are okay; "bottom-up-type" lists like "Methodist churches in Leicester" are not. Other too-narrow ones to be AFD'd next are listed. I try to cut through evident confusion about idea of "Lists of X of Y". --Doncram (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to assist, this discussion is actually here. Bookscale (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc. Lightburst (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved Comment To expand on what I said above, since it was raised by Bookscale, this list does fail WP:LISTN in that every entry is at least supposed to link to a bluelinked article (that's the principal reason of a list, which this is). Per WP:CSC, some redlinks are acceptable, if each redlinked entry would meet our notability guideline(s). Even still, per WP:CLN, since these are primarily navigational aids, most (a substantial majority) of the churches should be bluelinks. We don't have that. Like Lightburst and MarkH21, I favour deletion here as there is nothing in the history worth keeping beyond a simple listing of the churches and some bibliographic references. However, one alternative to deletion that would also likely survive DRV is draftification in that no one would be pleased but it would (a) get this non-qualifying list article out of Google-indexed Main: namespace (for those arguing deletion), (b) preserve history (for those arguing "keep" or "redirect"), and (c) allow editors to work on this list, without deadlines, in non-indexed Draft: namespace. Discussions could continue on what to include in the list, without said fear of having a deadline and then a strong consensus could emerge. As long as it's being edited, or discussions are taking place, there'd be no rationale for deletion in that namespace. And, we've got quite a deletion history here from this, so this would save having to re-add those tags to the talk page. End result: everyone would satisfice without the outcome. Doug Mehus T·C 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved reply This is a misinterpretation of our policy on lists. There is no requirement at all for bluelinks, and this is made clear in WP:LISTCRITERIA which states "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". Your grounds for deletion that there is "nothing in the history worth keeping beyond a simple listing...and some bibliographic references." is also flawed. There is the addition of significant referenced content e.g. [1], and the addition of the references alone is worth keeping as they contain additional information which could be used to improve the article, or any merge target or renamed article that comes out of this.----Pontificalibus 08:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I referenced WP:CLN, which applies to lists, so it's not flawed, particularly when you consider WP:AOAL which says that, although unlinked items can be included if there is consensus to do so (I've seen no evidence of such), such as in the case of a comprehensive list of works of a published author, composer, etc., in this case, we're just creating a list of mostly non-notable Methodist churches in Leicester. So, I go back to WP:NOTDIR cited by others. The point about the references, potentially, has merit in Draft: namespace, and note I've
endorsed draftification. ;-) --Doug Mehus T·C 14:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would modify my delete !vote above to anything but keep. What this article is, despite its title, is a list-article, and it's not a notable list. The list should be removed from the encyclopedia. Something else can exist with the same title: a redirect, or article–if someone takes the time to write one with proper sourcing. So whether the list is deleted, and then something else (an article, a redirect) is recreated thereafter, or whether it's changed into a redirect or article before this AfD closes, or as part of the AfD close... doesn't matter to me. So... I guess that's technically a delete but allow recreation as anything but a list, or redirect to anywhere, with or without merge, or draftify or userfy. Levivich 05:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally a list article trying to pretend it isn't one. It should just be turned into one or deleted outright. It's questionable if the vast majority of the buildings it lists are even worth mentioning in Wikipedia and doing so might entice people to create spin off articles for them when they shouldn't. Maybe Wikidata instead would be a better place for it. Either way, the article should probably be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ' Merge ' - As above, there are several options other than delete. I couldn't find coverage of the topic to justify keeping the article, However, there are other articles that could be usefully merged. E.g. Places_of_worship_in_Leicester appears to be a poor list with inappropriate links. The article for this AfD contains more information, but only about Methodist churches. It seems to me that merging and developing this topic is the best way forward. Ross-c (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Ross-c: - have you read any of the comments above which suggest that there are in fact sources available? Doing a Google search is not good enough. Bookscale (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with merge also. Although, I don't know if I can change my "vote". --Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1:.The way to change your vote is simply to replace Delete with Merge.Djflem (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or optionally draftify/merge if someone wants to actually do that. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation of the type prohibited by WP:NOTDIR point 6. "List of Methodist churches in Leicester" is essentially the same as the "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" mentioned in that policy, with religion substituted for food. Granted, the title isn't "List of Methodist churches in Leicester", but that's basically what the page is. It's certainly a list and not an article, in particular there's essentially no prose. It doesn't have navigational value because hardly any of the entries are links. Regarding the sources discussed above, they seem to me to be discussing the topic of Methodism in Leicester (or Leicestershire), which suggests that Methodism in Leicester may well be a notable topic. However this isn't an article about Methodism in Leicester, any more than a list of restaurants in France is an article about French cuisine. If someone does want to use the contents of this page to write an article about Methodism in Leicester then that's fine with me and I'd be happy for it to be moved to draft space for that purpose. But the fact that someone could use the sources in this page to write a completely different article is hardly a reason to keep it. Hut 8.5 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Hut 8.5: - for the millionth time, read the comments above. There are people here willing to rewrite the article to make it meet Wikipedia policies, and there are sources available to support the notability of Methodism in Leicester. The article does not need to be moved to draft space to be improved. Bookscale (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you're talking about isn't improvement. An article about Methodism in Leicester would have a different title, different scope and completely different contents. It would be a completely different page, not an improved version of this one. This page isn't encyclopedic and shouldn't remain in mainspace. The fact that someone may be able to write a completely different page on a related topic does not change that. If anybody needs access to the sources in this page to write the other article then draftification will allow that. Hut 8.5 14:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm getting really tired of replying to unfair comments like this. There seems to be a real dislike of anything on Wikipedia to do with churches or religious articles and a push to get rid of anything to do with them. Comments like "shouldn't remain in mainspace" are uncalled for. The proposals I've set out are an improvement to the article. The sources for some of the churches can be used to support the article, and there would still be some discussion of the churches in an article on the Methodist Church in Leicester and its history - that goes without saying. The article can be improved. Why not show some good faith and allow the editors who have volunteered to do that? It doesn't need to be draftified in a way that relegates the article and those who want to improve it to the status of some editor with few edits to their name who can't be trusted. Bookscale (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not supporting getting rid of it because it relates to religion and I'd appreciate it if you comment on the content and not what you think the contributor's motives are. I don't think a list of Methodist churches in Leicester is encyclopedic content, because it fails WP:NOT#DIR. Yes, every time we decide to delete an article that constitutes a decision that the content shouldn't remain in mainspace. Quite possibly an article about Methodism in Leicester would have some discussion of churches in it, but it would be a discussion of those churches with paragraphs of prose and not a list of them. When I say that what you're suggesting isn't an improvement I mean that what you're suggesting is writing a completely different page as opposed to making this one better. I'm entirely happy with someone writing an article about Methodism in Leicester, but I don't see why that means this page should remain in mainspace. Hut 8.5 12:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would conditionally support the merge supported by @Ross-c and Hut 8.5:, but this article cannot wait for that merge to be carried out and, given the controversial nature of this article, consensus to merge with the target should be discussed at the talk page of the proposed target article. It's not our place to deliver edicts to merge said content into a target. Thus, I think a merger is ultimately appropriate down the road, but that the correct outcome as an alternative to deletion is to draftify this list which fails the above-noted policies for lists and lists, categories, and navigation templates. It's non-qualifying encyclopedic content and cannot remain in the Main: namespace. While it's being draftified, incubated, and so forth, a parallel discussion can emerge on the talk page of the proposed target. But, at present, consensus is now firmly against "keep"-ing this article, and since "merge" is a variant on "keep," we really do only have two (three, actually) possible outcomes: delete, draftify, or userify. Userify isn't likely a good option as there's a number of willing editors to contribute. Doug Mehus T·C 20:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Dmehus: the article does not need to be draftified to be improved. If there is notability (which there is and which has been established above, several times), and there are reliable sources (which there are, again, established above several times), then the article can be cleaned up. It's that simple. Bookscale (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bookscale WP:GNG doesn't apply to lists. It does, however, fail our requirements for lists, navigation templates, and categories, as been pointed out above and which even one or more "keep"/"redirect" !votes acknowledge. It is thus unencyclopedic and unencyclopedic content cannot remain in the Google-indexed Main namespace. Consensus is firmly against keeping this list and, in my view, we should not be dictating the potential merger target at the close of this AfD. Thus, draftification/userification is the best outcome here. Doug Mehus T·C 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The sourcing of the list entries is primary, at best, with little indication that they would be notable on their own. Either way, Wikipedia is not a directory. The article should have remained deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Comment @Ajf773: again, can you please read the comments above about sources and editors who are offering to improve the article? It's not fair to just come in at the end and make an unconstructive !vote without reading all of what has been mentioned before. Bookscale (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

Discussion has narrow point of view focus on religion (nominator position in wikiproject) and disregards of other uses of such an article-list and how it contributes to an understanding of cultural significance of architecture, urban development, and city/regional history

This list is tightly focused and finite and NOT indiscriminate.

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.

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 is one blue, any likely more red links can be turned into stand-alone articles. As per Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, 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.

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

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.

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.

NOT KEEP is not a AfD discussion option and does not, should not, and cannot be taken to mean DELETE. Djflem (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: Can I ask why you moved your keep vote and restated what you already said above? Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HEY is appropriate header to indicate that an article was changed since last AfD. What restatements?Djflem (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that in the essay, however what you changed to hey was your vote section, with discussion under it, you've restated what you wrote there, and moved your vote here. I'm asking why you did that. As is it could cause confusion and accidentally cause you to be counted twice. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please read HEY again, as it does describe how articles should be evaluated after they have been re-worked/sources added. Please clarify what you believe is being re-stated, because that's not what I nor any honest reader can see.Djflem (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, Noting Jerodlycett's reply, I see no reason for Djflem's comment to be moved-duplicated from above when you consider that the argument is essentially the same and the !vote has been moved but the preceding !vote is still a bolded "HEY"— from above. Can you perform some procedural actions here in your capacity as a non-involved admin?? Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To which duplications are you referring in your claim?Djflem (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem, I assume the same thing Jerodlycett was referring to, which is your exhaustive preliminary analysis. You've essentially repeated much of what you said before and moved your "keep" !vote. Noting to the closer that your earlier HEY is a "keep" !vote and that this repeat should be disregarded. Doug Mehus T·C 22:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify what has been repeated. If you cannot do so, stop repeating the false claim.Djflem (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: For the second time, please read WP:TALK#REPLIED about editing your comments after others have replied as you did again here. For what it’s worth, it also does look like a double !vote since first-level bolded text is reserved for them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Final comment and note to closing administrator - Borne out of a message Doncram sent to me, I thought I'd make a final apology and comment (both to the editors and whoever closes this) in good faith to explain some of my edits above and then bow out gracefully to let this take its course.
  I'm sorry if I have contributed to this AfD being unpleasant and unconstructive. I like to take the Wikipedia philosophy of alternatives to deletion seriously, and think that there are too many AfDs where a little bit of research and thought by individual editors should result in an article being kept or merged instead of deleted where that is possible. In this AfD I have commented often out of frustration because I can see a very clear way to keep but substantially improve the article to meet Wikipedia policy, spurred on not only by having found genuinely reliable sources, but also the fact that I and others are happy to do some of the improvement work and editors like Pontificalibus have specifically mentioned that. I also feel frustrated because it feels like this article has been subjected to far more scrutiny than others, which I think is unfair. My thought above was that it is perhaps religious-themed articles that are disliked but that is probably an unfair generalisation that reflects badly on the editors who have commented here, so I apologise for that. My frustration also comes, thirdly, because I don't have the time and space to improve the article in the course of the AfD but would be prepared to do it after, so I don't want to see the sourcing that is already in the article (some of which can and should be kept in respect of individual churches) lost entirely.
  I would like to see this article turned into something good that is worthy of the encyclopedia, which is why I have asked for it to be kept. If that's not the consensus, then draftifying should be the only alternative to that if editors are supposed to look for an alternative to deletion. That's all I'm going to say on this AfD. I'd love it if other editors could support a means by which there is a way to continue to improve the article. I think the best way to do that is to leave it to be improved, but appreciate others may have different views. Thanks. Bookscale (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said earlier, 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 the 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. It doesn't really matter what we call it, and we could equally well call it a combination article. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a perfectly legitimate list of like items that is not indiscriminate and consistent with like lists already throughout Wikipedia. Lists are one method of organization; categories are another, and they both serve different functions. I would disagree with draftifying for cleanup, and kind of surprised the DGG would suggest such. Wikipedia is a work in progress, it is never finished. An article being sloppy is not a good reason to remove it from mainspace or delete, it's a good reason to fix it. Worst case, you delete the sloppy and/or unsourced parts and work from history to restore the data in a better format. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 21 February 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.