Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester


 * 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. See Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Baptist churches in Leicester

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Baptists in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH21talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE:This was closed as Keep on 22 January 2020, but was reverted following a request to do so. Djflem (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The NAC was self-reverted by the non-admin closer after a discussion about it being a BADNAC. — MarkH21talk 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:
 * 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 but allow new AFD by deletion review on 22 January, with page restored by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus
 * But new AFD at Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester was opened 30 January, was continuing as of 12 February, was closed 22 February. --Doncram, 8 March 2020
 * It's worth making a note to the closing administrator that 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
 * Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
 * Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21


 * 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)
 * The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --Doncram (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 that  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. — MarkH21talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The notability of the topic is referenced in the article.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 UGLY, but Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved.Djflem (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH21talk 22:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 mention on "no notable churches" and the criteria stated in policy, this would be keep.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That guideline literally suggests that you not create a list in the first place, but use a parent article (i.e. Baptists in Leicester or a prose Baptist churches in Leicester). — MarkH21talk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 Other stuff exists.23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.Are you going to continue copying every comment from Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester to here even after I respond to them over there? — MarkH21talk 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am following your lead about copying & doing exactly as you are with regard to that AfD, which is a similar, but different AFD. It's about the AfD not about you. I mentioned the essay 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 Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
 * Sure, but not acknowledging the responses when reposting comments suggests that you are ignoring or dismissing the responses.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. — MarkH21talk 00:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring or dismissing, I'm contesting the arguments being put forth and providing links and insight guidelines and policies that suggest this list should exist. Therefore, I quote the specific part of it, rather than just add a link. Can you address them and/or do the same? Doing so can make the discussion more productive.Djflem (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant that you're copying the comments from the other AfD, after responses were made to it there, without acknowledging those responses forcing me to copy them here. It's not important, just a procedural thing.I don't know why you think I haven't been addressing your arguments, which are based on Wikipedia essays rather than policies or guidelines. Here are pertinent quotes from policies and guidelines. From the policy What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:
 * "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."


 * "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."


 * From the guideline 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:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention directory in AfD. — MarkH21talk 01:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are more specific things than the sweeping statements above which pertain to this AfD. The bold is mine:
 * From:guidline 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: guidline 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 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.
 * Djflem (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:
 * Where we disagree on 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 “Baptist churches” and “churches in Leicester” is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. — MarkH21talk 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another directory of non-notable churches in one particular British city. Ajf773 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Policy? Wikpedia provides for themed lists of items that would not necessarily garner a stand-alone article.Djflem (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a policy that covers this WP:NOT. A really loose list of article-less churches with their rough location included. Ajf773 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly 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) 09:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. Just because it wouldn't violate NOTDIR#7 does not mean that it does not violate NOTDIR#6. It's still a cross-categorization that is not a culturally significant phenomenon. — MarkH21talk 09:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So we do agree that it does not violate NOTDIR#7. It does not violate #6 either: There is no Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Even if there were a Category:Congregational churches in Leicester, that would not apply since a list of List Congregational churches in Leicester would be more than than appropriate for inclusion along with any individual item that had its own article, as is precedent and common practice, and would be included in Category:Lists of churches in England and by extension its parents. (e.g. List of GS1 country codes>Category:Lists of country codes>Category:Country codes) Djflem (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What? NOTDIR#6 absolutely applies. This is almost identical to the situation described.NOTDIR#6 is clearly about articles, since it says Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article (bolding is mine). This article is the intersection of Category:Churches in Leicester and Category:Baptist churches. It's almost identical to the given example "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" in NOTDIR#6. — MarkH21talk 09:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the specific part of 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) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 20:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Australian lists are directories like this one and should also be deleted. The rest are limited to churches that are either notable enough to have articles or are designated historic buildings. We should definitely have lists for notable and historic churches, we should not have lists merely to be a directory of all places of worship. A Churches in Leicester article should be limited to notable ones. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirement that items on a list be notable.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...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. As there is no parent article, this list should stand as is.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This is clearly a useful encyclopedic list and meets WP:LISTPURP. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But it also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion above and explain what particular part of the policy to which you are referring, because your claim seems to be invalid.Djflem (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably WP:NOTDIR#6 once again: 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. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories. Pinging: . — MarkH21talk 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that per MarkH, as well as "Simple listings without context information" and WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These generic facilities do not need to be listed merely because they exist. There are more than 40,000 churches in the UK, more than there are pubs, and it is not Wikipedia's place to list them all, even when split into articles by city and denomination. Reywas92Talk 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete [Was "Merge" to List of Baptist churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. Changed to "delete" because I have already merged the 4 Grade II listed ones, and the rest seems to include outrageous errors and is just shite.  So "Delete" is my !vote to emphasize how "shite"-y it is. --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)]  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.  (This is a copy of my comment at the Congregational churches AFD.  This is stupid, having 3 AFDs, rather than letting one conclude and take your cue from that. The Methodist one is heading towards Merge, I think.) --Doncram (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, IMO you have not understood the discussion at the Methodist one. Right, you are not proposing merge yourself, but there is no way this should be outright deleted because there is good alternative to deletion available (merge).  If you would have let it conclude, there would be no need for other AFDs.  Further general discussion about AFD behavior, not above content, should be done at Talk page of one of these AFDs with notice given at the other Talk pages.  Discussion between MarkH21 and myself can occur at my Talk page, where MarkH21 did open a section, expressing their objection to my bolded notice towards top of this AFD.  Happy to discuss it further there.  --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I argued for a at Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, which has properly referenced material worth merging. I do think that outright deletion is the correct outcome for this article because there is no properly referenced material worth merging. — MarkH21talk 07:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sez you. 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 Baptist 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 Baptist 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 Baptist churches have more commonality with the Baptist churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Baptist churches are sensibly discussed together (perhaps noting which ones were visited by John the Baptist), 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) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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)

HEY since the initation of AfD, the list has been worked on. To be considered (bold mine) Djflem (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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


 * 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)
 * The article as it stands is in more than satisfactory shape (format & refs) to remain published in main space, where it will be seen & invite improvements by more editors, while regulation to draft will hinder that process by hiding it from potential contbutorsDjflem (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Djflem that the article does not contravene any of the WP:NOT categories that would make the inclusion of this material unsuitable for a list article. Lists of churches for a city are appropriate for a Wikipedia and are not a "directory". The article needs significant cleanup but that's not the purpose of AfD. Bookscale (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to cover off everything, I believe the churches in Leicester have been discussed by multiple reliable sources. There are some in the article, and there are likely to be others, for example, Rimmington's helpful articles (another one, and another one in a different publication: Rimmington, G. "The Baptist churches and society in Leicestershire, 1951-1971." Local Historian 39 (2009): 109-21, etc.. Bookscale (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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) 21:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as this topic has coverage in multiple reliabls sources as shown in the references and sources sections of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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) 11:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - these lists could all be merged into List of places of worship in Leicester - q.v. List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling et al. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep rather than merge; combining all the city's lists of different religions' premises/congregations into Places of worship in Leicester would result in a very long and unweieldy page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If a single Leicester list would be too long, then a split by postcode area would be appropriate. LE1 - LE9 are the areas that comprise Leicester, so that would give nine lists. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge into Places of worship in Leicester. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly just a "directory" as it includes a large number of purely historic entries. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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) 22:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: There has been more activity at ongoing Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester. About Methodist churches, there are more sources (two articles by Rimington). I think any potential closer should close that 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 less strong here.  In fact I see no source available on-line which can be argued to support keeping this.  This Baptist article includes mention of 3 off-line sources:
 * A Brief History of Free Churches in Leicestershire & Rutland, Rev A A Betteridge
 * The Story of the East Midlands Baptist Association, Fred M W Harrison, 1986
 * Places of Worship in the City of Leicester, Leicester Council of Faiths, 2004
 * but I see no serious evidence that those sources are helpful, 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.
 * I do see assertion that several of the Baptist churches are Type II or whatever listed buildings; those ones could be added to List of Baptist churches.  Above I !voted "Merge" to that list, which I still think is the right option. --Doncram (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of online articles not previously mentioned (I think?), see some in the list here. Bookscale (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.Djflem (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify/Delete per . This is, for all intents and purposes, a list; not an article. The "delete" arguments, arguably, have this one as WP:NOTDIR criterion #6 is entirely on point. Thus, the WP:GNG arguments don't hold water. Merging is a possibility, but it shouldn't be our place to "court order" a merger on a specific target, so draftification is entirely reasonable. This would allow those favouring "keep" to decide to where they want to initiate a merge talk page discussion or, alternatively, to refocusing the scope of this list into an article on Baptist churches in Leicester. Doug Mehus T · C  21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a good observation to note that a page entitled List of Baptist churches in Leicester 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 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 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.Djflem (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * At Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester I added the following:- "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." I think this should apply to this article also. Only churches with articles should be listed. I am not sure what is the best way to handle these separate articles. --Bduke (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Note The above comment (@8.20 26feb20) was made after message sent to editor the nominator (@07:4826feb20) (and may have been prompted by it). Could this be considered an instance of inappropriate canvassing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's absolutely not inappropriate canvassing. If you bothered to read the very behavioral guideline that you link, you'd see that WP:APPNOTE includes as an appropriate notification: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following... On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"


 * Oh hey, . So this was a totally appropriate notification by the very guideline you link.Knock it off, . This is another frivolous personal attack by virtue of being a false accusation of wrongdoing (e.g. like ). You've made four personal attacks on these AfDs and have been warned  and  . You need to stop making false accusations immediately. — MarkH21talk 08:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to the inquiry and acknowledging that guidelines are important.Djflem (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there should be only 1 list named List of churches in Leicester for all types of churches, otherwise keep since the article seems well sourced to RSs.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is a list though, so notability doesn't really apply. It fails WP:AOAL and WP:CLN woefully; we cannot allow cruddy content to remain in Main: namespace as poor content, in turn, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Thus, your idea of having a single List of churches in Leicester, perhaps sectioned off by denomination, has merit, but the proper place to handle this is Draft: namespace where editors can decide on inclusion criteria, whether to write it in list format or prose (I favour prose, since most of the church buildings are inherently non-notable and not eligible for bluelinked articles), and the like. Since we have no deadlines, we can't allow cruddy content which fails our guidelines to remain in Main: namespace indefinitely. Moreover, just speaking in generalities, the behaviour of some editors in this and other AfDs has been, frankly, appalling, particularly the refactoring of editors' comments and rearranging their comments seemingly to effect preferential placement. Doug Mehus T · C  22:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One simply needs to see LISTN, a section of Notability, to see the absurdity of the above claim.Djflem (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, lists containing with "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 SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, LISTCRITERIA, or LISTN, it is correctly observed that it does follow Wikipedia's common practice to keep those lists which do have blue-links as is the case with the aforementioned pages. This article contains at least four entries which are independently notable as listed buildings. The creation of those articles would thus bring it in line with other articles and remove a concern/original claim of the nominator who stated that this is "a list with no notable entries". They are:
 * Charles Street, Central Baptist Church
 * Main Street Evington
 * Melbourne Hall, Evangelical Free Church
 * Narborough Road, Robert Hall Memorial Baptist Church
 * Belvoir Street
 * --Djflem (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum/correction: add Central (now blue-linked);strike Melbourne.Djflem (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of those in Category:Lists of listed buildings in Cumbria contain non-linked items. I'd add that most parish churches (rather than Methodist churches) tend to be listed buildings and will have third party coverage from a number of sources and are significant to the residents of the parish. Even still the list appears to satisfy AOAL#8 anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to return and reply to anything here, because I don't want to prolong this AFD, which has long been ready to be closed (delete).
 * But, as has been pointed out before in some or all of these related AFDs, it is just wrong to assert that any list whatsoever is Wikipedia-notable, just because it can have one or a few bluelinks. That is just silly, and I am surprised that one or more editors are repeating that. (If someone seriously believes that, please consider: do you want there to be a million or more separate lists covering these?  E.g. "List of stone churches", "List of churches in Leicester", "List of churches in Leicestershire", "list of Baptist churches having doors", "List of churches having addresses", "List of churches built before 2020", "List of buildings in England", "List of places on Bishop Streets in any city having a Bishop Street", etc. etc. etc.?)
 * No, in practice in Wikipedia it is NOT true that listed buildings are assumed to be individually notable. In England, it is usually assumed that Grade I (buildings of exceptional interest) and Grade II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest) are going to be individually notable.  The four ones here are just Grade II.  Note that Leicester makes a point to mention the 13 Grade I buildings in Leicester, but not lower ones.  There is no need to split out that section of "Leicester" to create a separate "List of churches in Leicester".
 * But sure, if enough coverage exists to satisfy wp:GNG, a Grade II building could nonetheless be Wikipedia-notable (not shown to be thef case for any of these though). However, there does exist Grade I listed buildings in Leicester, and those 4 churches could better be mentioned there, without creating separate articles about them.  Also, they could be mentioned in List of Baptist churches in the United Kingdom, which I think I pointed out months ago, above.  They are still not mentioned there;  there is no reason to split out a smaller list of Baptist churches in Leicester alone.
 * I probably won't reply further. --Doncram (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A fair point. So, in your opinion, how many Grade I or II listed churches would need to be included in a list like this for it to be kept? Or would they all have to be Grade I or II listed? Don't feel you have to reply. But I'd be interested to hear your opinion. Whether or not this is just "silliness". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, Martinevans123, I'll answer. It would make sense to split out a sublist from List of Baptist churches in England when there are about 200 or more to split out.  The 200 or so rule of thumb is effective practice for splitting out sublists for historic places in the U.S., and would generally apply for tabulated lists of places in England or anywhere else, too.  Technically I think there is a guideline somewhere on the number of bytes justifying a split, which basically corresponds to about 200 items like these. I have added the four Grade II-listed ones to the List of Baptist churches in England list.  I am not really sure all four of those really need to be mentioned there, but I am quite sure there are not 196 more that need to be listed there, so split won't be needed anytime soon! --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But did you want to answer my questions too? I don't think there is actually any written policy on this, is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Martinevans123, please note your statements don't show an understanding yet about the fact there are three levels of listed buildings: Level I, Level II*, and Level II. Please see listed buildings for explanations of those 3.  I have tried, am willing to keep trying to answer your questions (but maybe this should be at your or my Talk page?).  You asked for my opinion; I gave it.  There is a written policy/guideline on how big is too big for a list-article somewhere, I will try to find it, but anyhow the current List of Baptist churches in England list-article/section is nowhere near that.  What further question(s) do you have / what other written policy do you want to see? --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. So I "don't show an understanding yet about the fact there are three levels of listed buildings". "lol", as they say. I thought my questions were reasonable clear. Never mind. Please don't trouble yourself any further on my account. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Even if not closed as "delete," to close it as anything other than "draftify" would be wholly incorrect; there's simply no consensus here for retaining the article as is in Main: namespace. Doug Mehus T · C  15:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to delete or draftifyDjflem (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your beliefs are clear and do not need to be repeated again and again and again and again and again. Please leave it to the closer to assess what the consensus is. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTE:It important to note that since the nomination RS which support the notablility/verfiability have been added, including — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks, great, I have added that citation to the row about the Central Baptist Church in the List of Baptist churches in England list-article. The existence of that citation does not mean that a separate article about the church is needed;  I think its row in that list-article is just the right amount of coverage.  And there is no need to divide out the few Leicester ones from the England-wide list-article, which is certainly not too big yet. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added four Baptist churches in Leicester to the List of Baptist churches in England list-article. Above I think I argued for "merger", but at this point I think "Delete" is better.  There is other junk in the current List of Baptist churches in Leicester article, such as claim that "St. John the Baptist church" in Leicester is a Baptist church, which is just false, it is a Church of England church.  It is garbage, frankly, and best deleted. :) Or fine, give a copy to anyone who wants to try to salvage anything other than garbage to put into Leicester or List of Baptist churches in England article, but I personally don't see anything of merit worth copying over. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I sould suggest that List of Baptist churches in England is garbagy, piece of junk. It is a random, indiscriminate mish-mash of odds and ends, just filled a little of this a little of that without real reason, rationale or parameters. What is the basis, the goal or objective of such hodge-podge grocery list of incomplete information? What does it have to with the real truly academic & encyclopedic world outside the Wikidpedia orbit? This list and others for Leicester and London present a comprehensive, perhaps exhaustive/finite lists of real complete information that has vetted and verified by university & community studies/survey. They are what make for a real encyclopedia and make Wikipedia, the purported goal of which is to record human knowledge, better.Djflem (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where exactly can one find the Saint John the Baptist Church that you claim is in the list? Djflem (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Under "Closed churches", Clarendon Park Road, Clarendon Park Baptist Church is referenced to Church of St John the Baptist. Likewise, Melbourne Hall (under "Open Churches") is not a Baptist church either. — MarkH21talk 00:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work for catching that: corrected! That scouring of the references and the recent work by User:Martinevans123 helps to improve this list-article. One can safety assume that citation of exported from this article for notablility/verfiability at the aforementioned List of Baptist Churches demonstrates its quality as a source. There is much to mined from it and others in this list for creating in-line citations. The work done by User:Martinevans123 (thanks!) and this ref-check clearly demonstrate that keeping the article in the main space, rather than a draft, leads to improvements. The question of the Melbourne Hall highlights the architectural (as opposed to religious aspect) of the list is better dealt with on the talk-page.Djflem (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note that Anglican churches in Leicester and List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester ought to show if any of their entries are listed buildings. I believe Leicester Cathedral is a Grade II* listed building (but pardon my limited understanding). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 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) As with the similar article for Congregational Churdhes, I think that 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) 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * List of churches in Leicester with articles on Wikipedia isn't really very encyclopedic (and probably a violation of NOT:DIR).Djflem (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with Bduke's suggestion. Churches in Leicester was created as a redirect back on 13 Jan 2020, to redirect to Leicester, which is a place where churches that are especially significant in the city might be mentioned.  It would not be appropriate to list more than a couple churches there, because most are so non-important in context of discussing Leicester.  Nor would it be appropriate to split out any churches mentioned there, to a separate list, whether or not that would be expanded to become a directory of all churches that have ever existed in Leicester.  We simply do not want this one or a zillion other directories titled "Churches in X", where X is a city or town or other area.  Nor do we want "Restaurants in X" or "Factories in X" or a zillion other possibilities.  Bduke, while I kind of agree with your dismissal of the AFD topic article, IMHO you are simply wrong to imply that a bigger list of unimportant churches is "needed";  it is not. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If it will assuage your concerns about zillions of possibilities, there is a Category:Lists of churches, which includes many (maybe hundreds) "Churches in X" and "X churches in Y" that satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no Category:Lists of factories. There is a small Category:Lists of restaurants, which does indeed include random, indiscriminate collection of lists of restaurants that have blue-links, which would which be better described as Category:Lists of restaurants with articles on Wikipedia, since the only criteria for them existing seems to be having an article Wikipedia, which is a indiscriminate, random, non-encyclopedia, non-academic, self-referential Wikipedia-world rationale for a parameter. That would be similiar, if one correctly reads Bduke's suggestion that an article "that lists all the churches in Leicester that have their own article" be created, to List of churches in Leicester (with articles on Wikipedia) to which Churches in Leicester would be properly redirected. But rather than speculate or fret about future worries, the matter at hand is this AfD, and as you are likely aware, which should be dealt with on its own merits. This list as a whole has been well vetted and clearly undeniably meets notibility and verifiability as provided by the reliable sources and should be evaluated in that context. That may help to expedite its closure.Djflem (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to 's good-faith suggestion of creating a List of churches in Leicester with articles on Wikipedia, because WP:AOAL and WP:CLN require most of the list entries to be bluelinks, with some redlinks, the correct place to draft such a combined article is in Draft: namespace. As written, this is just a list of old non-notable church addresses and this fails WP:NOTDIR criterion #6. As suggest above, this would be better written in paragraph form, as prose, and this should occur in Draft: namespace. Doug Mehus  T · C  03:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This list and the others for churches in Leicester easily fulfill the advantages of a list. While, bluelinks are not a required by SALAT,Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, LISTCRITERIA, or LISTN, which this list (and others) easily fulfill, DO have them. Prose would NOT be the better format for the presentation of the material, so there's no need for a draft. Unless you have something to add to explain your suggestion there appears to be no reason to incessantly repeat it.Djflem (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, looks like some bludgeoning going on here... Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just not seeing it. Perhaps there are sources enough to have an article about baptism in leicester where this could be merged, but this seems like a NOTDIRECTORY issue. Second choice, I suppose, would be Selective Merge into a list of churches that includes notable examples. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Extensive, reliable sources that prove Baptist churches in this city are notability are here, here, and here. A somewhat less extensive source is here.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First source appears it might support an article on Baptists in Leicester, though not about Baptist churches AFAICT. Second and third are Rimmington, discussed (and dismissed by me) above and/or in related AFDs.  Fourth is not usable as a source for anything.  As I think i've asserted above, if someone could write a list-article using info from Rimmington, they should have done so long ago, by now, but it seems to me that Rimmington's articles are not seriously helpful for a list like this, so I eventually changed my !vote Delete.  Bookscale asserted that Rimmington was good and further that there must be more so-far-undiscovered sources; I disagree.  YMMV. --Doncram (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * added to article.Djflem (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would seem that G.T. Rimmington an Honorary Visiting Fellow, Centre for the History of Religions and Political Pluralism, University of Leicester from 2000-2019 (who has written extensively about Baptist and other church buildings in Leicester) would include information in his (3rd above):, which does not appear to be available online.Djflem (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first above,, AFAICT does not appear to be freely accessible on line, and therefore cannot be properly evaluated. It may or may not contain info usable info to support GNG and verifiablity some theoretical article, but is not needed to do for this existing one.Djflem (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2020 (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.