Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Anglo-Catholic Churches


 * 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 '''keep. nomination withdrawn'''. Bduke (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Anglo-Catholic Churches

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Springnuts (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reason for nomination: Failed ProD.  Not compliant with WP:LISTS, rather it is a DIRECTORY.  This article should be replaced with a category.  As a list it is impractical: there are many thousands of Anglo-Catholic churches (though  disagrees - see their edit summary here  and a comprehensive list would be overly large.  In short, useful information, wrong method.  Springnuts (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Request by nominator to AfD to be closed. ivo discussion below I would like to withdraw this nomination and would request any admin to close this AfD. Springnuts (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —Springnuts (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 06:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Carolynparrishfan is right - 'many thousands' is an exaggeration. Hundreds might be correct. But the list is incomplete as is - it misses the parish where I was introduced to Anglo-catholicism for one. And I don't see a future for this. At the moment it seems to be a list of links to parish websites, which won't do. And we can't make a category of it, because the category could only be populated by redlinks to articles about local churches, which consensus pretty clearly doesn't like. Reluctant delete -- BPMullins | Talk 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure a debate about numbers is hugely productive, but in England alone about 30% of parish priests - 3000 or so - would count themselves under the Anglo-Catholic banner. Many have more than one Church.  Springnuts (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have touched on an important pond difference here. In Canada (and I believe the US), AC churches are sufficiently rare as to be inherently notable. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep but it raises important wider issues - The value of a list like this is that it enables articles that are needed to be identified. In this respect, lists differ from categories (which cannot have red links.  I see two difficulties with this list (1) deciding which churches qualify for inclusion (2) whether the church in question is in fact notable.  The problem with a list like this is that people will add more churches as red links, and this invites the creation of articles.  However the view taken in WP is that most churches are NN, and I fear that it is right.  The church of which I am a member is very notable to me, and I could argue that it has a wider notability, but it is probably only locally notable; possibly regionally.  It is not Anglo-Catholic, or even Anglican.  The same considerations will apply to hundreds of churches.  If this list is to be retained, it needs a moderator (or group of moderators) who will ensure that NN churches quickly removed.  Alternatively, we must open the door to every church having its own article, as we seem to have done with High Schools, but have stood out against added Middle and Primary Schools.  Also, if this list is retained, we must allow similar lists for every denomination and every stream in broad ones such as the Anglican church.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is a reasonable-sized list including many churches that are individually notable. I note at least one is a U.S. National Historic Landmark and others are notable for various reasons.  Several of the church articles already mentioned NRHP status.  Further, I just replaced red-links or external links by wikilinks to new articles on 7 of the U.S. churches that are U.S. Registered Historic Places.  Although my new articles may be stubby, they are notable:  there is plenty of secondary information available about them and they are listed on the National Register because they meet criteria for national importance.  I find it odd that the nomination for deletion complains that the list would have thousands of entries, and then wants to delete it for the unwieldy size that might be.  But the list is a reasonable size of notable churches.  I think that criteria for notability of individual church articles ought to be applied to the individual church articles.  It is perfectly reasonable to have a list/index to the notable ones, and that is mainly what this list-article is. doncram (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would a 'list' of Anglo-Catholic churches notable for their Anglo-Catholicism - be that notability architectural, liturgical, historical or doctrinal - not be best achieved by a category? Individual such churches should have an article, but using a category avoids the red-link problem.  Springnuts (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response I think there's room for a List as well as a Category. A List can do things a category cannot:  for one, it can hold red-links to items that are known to be notable, but which an editor doesn't have time to create the articles right at the moment.  Also, a List can be expanded to include thumbnail pictures and short descriptions of the items in the list, and otherwise be developed to make an interesting article on its own.  The roles of Lists and Categories are often complementary.  For example, see the List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina, which I have been working on recently.  It complements the "Category:National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina".  Also there are corresponding List and Category pairs for NHLs in every other state.  I think it is not reasonable to eliminate a perfectly nice and useful list like the one we are discussing here, which can become a nice article. doncram (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reviewing the two relevant guidelines - Lists and Categories, lists, and navigational templates - I believe List of Anglo-Catholic Churches  benefits both WikiProject Anglicanism and Wikipedia. To quote, "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic ..." This list is not indeterminate as it is restricted to notable churches. This lists allows readers and editors to keep tabs on non-existent or deleted articles by the red-links. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator I believe that we may have consensus that as long as the list is restricted to individually notable churches (with thanks to doncram for this, imo most helpful, edit) we are content for it to stay. I am happy to withdraw the nomination on that basis.  Regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.