Talk:Anglican churches in Leicester

post-AFD changes
Note the AFD closure of "Keep" does not preclude further editing to remove non-notable items, etc. I just edited the list-article with edit summary "drop the ones which are non-notable (i.e. no wikipedia article, no assertion of importance much less inline citation supporting such assertion)". Happy to discuss. It is now a short-ish list, and does not need to be separate, and having it separate hurts readers and general organization by editors, IMHO. If there is not substantial discussion, next I suppose I will propose merger, probably to List_of_Anglican_churches. --Doncram (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would support a merge (along with the relevant parts of Anglican churches in Leicester, Draft:List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Leicester, and Places of worship in Leicester) to a combined List of churches in Leicester article (although it also makes sense to just have a section in Places of worship in Leicester). — MarkH21talk 04:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should discuss this and List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester jointly as the topics are related and the discussion at Talk:List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester has attracted more participants.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  18:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How about pause here and proceed further on just that other list. I suggest leaving this article as it is now, i.e. with the seeming-non-notable items removed.  That material is disputed (by me).  If someone adds that unsupported material back, then that will trigger discussion here to be back on, and whoever restores anything would have to be ready to defend inclusion of the material (which would certainly require some sourcing).  Keep the Roman Catholic discussion about just the Roman Catholic material.  A lower standard for list-item notability there could conceivably involve some Roman Catholic-specific sources being asserted to be acceptable.  If someone wants to propose some Anglican-specific lower standard for list-item notability here, say, they are free to do so here. --Doncram (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, some time has gone by, and the Roman Catholic (RC) discussion took unexpected turns, i want to say largely because one v. productive editor showed up and developed stuff with an RC-informed-perspective, and several more contributed substantially. I and other editors helped despite or because of griping and some disagreements. What happened:
 * I do not support a merge at this time.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * a detailed "pretty good" article got developed, although it is refocused now to be about RC churches in a larger area, that of the RC church's "deanery" centered on Leicester.
 * for the current RC churches:
 * an editor built a table and rounded up photos and more, while in fact redefining the scope to be the deanery
 * local church webpages were found for most, in some cases being Facebook pages, and some other individual-church-specific sources were found and used.
 * for the few having articles, summary descriptions were written
 * it got developed with RC-specific sources found, including a separate v. short stub-type subpage for each church (well, not found for all) at the Nottingham diocese level.
 * locations of all were identified (not easy) and coordinates put into article, and linked "Map of all coordinates" is quite good now and helpful if i do say so
 * several editors helped about characterizing odd duck churches, including a Polish one, that didn't necessarily fit, and including sorting out whether various in-Leicestershire-but-maybe-or-maybe-not-in-this-deanery ones belonged.
 * several editors found more photos and otherwise helped develop directly, or otherwise contributed to decisions at Talk
 * for the closed RC churches:
 * these were mostly just dropped; no one showed up to "save" them and/or substantial sourcing is not available and/or they are really non-notable, not even at level to be included as list items
 * a few items about former churches and ruins of an abbey, from times before the Catholic church got booted from England, were developed
 * the deleted items were actually moved/copied to a Talk subpage, for easier future review by any interested editor
 * RC-specific stuff about their historic churches (proceedings of a diocese-level committee on their historic churches) was found and reviewed
 * Leicester's local registry of historic place was reviewed and about 5 RC churches turned out to be listed and have info which can be used to create/expand descriptions for them (by the way some higher number of Anglican churches are covered in same documents)
 * Wikipedia's lists of Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in this area were reviewed to identify any more RC ones and find pics for them; it turns out those list-articles do not identify denominations at all


 * it can be viewed as direct improvement of the RC Leicester list-article, tho transforming its area of focus. Which can be viewed, alternatively, as "allow list to be stripped down to notable entries only, then merged to 'List of Roman Catholic churches in the U.K.'" (which needed to be, and has partially been, reorganized into geographic areas that make sense in the RC church) plus "develop detail in one RC-recognized-area's section and split that out".

About this Anglican one, I don't think any of that is going to happen. I think there is an Anglican diocese named for Leicestershire, but no one really knows what Anglican-church-meaningful district(s) are relevant. So I think that the right outcome here, after having deleted the non-notable ones (lacking articles) is now to redirect this list-article, probably to List of Anglican churches. Because what's left is too small, it's a stub of a list-article, not even corresponding to an Anglican area. With some notes left here, to future editors, that the pre-AFD version here did have a list of names of some churches. No one is stopped from developing more about any Anglican area, say for the diocese covering Leicester, and eventually splitting out is possible if/when it got to be too big. --Doncram (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)