Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester

Methodist Churches in Leicester
With regard to Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, I ask that your reconsider your closure on Jan 18, which I believe is premature. Indeed NO Consensus has been reached and the closing appears focused on a narrow point of the discussion. There have been various suggestions offered as preferred alternatives to deletion, including merging, partially merging, dratifying that are not addressed in the closer's statement, including an extensive one made the day before on Jan 17. Furthermore, it does not take in consideration two very similar AfDs, which are mentioned: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, which have bearing. Would you kindly Wikipedia:RELIST? Taking into account the fact WP:LIST that there 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, the discussion at this particular AfD is not complete. In good faith, it would seem that a AfD of such complexity needs more time for more voices and ideas to be heard as a courtesy for the benefit of Wikipedia. Thank-you.Djflem (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The other two AfD should run on their own merits, you've been told this. The consensus was that since, per WP:LISTN, Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. and the group itself did not meet it, you were just about the only voice that disagreed with that, the rest was whether it should be deleted and merged, deleted and moved in draft space, or just deleted. You may want to ask for a WP:REFUND if you want to work on it in user or draft-space. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would be happy to read your rebuttal and Sandstrom's consideration of the source added to the article after the nomination and to the at least 2 participants who agreed that it satisfied GNG. (Quoting yourself would be fine.)Djflem (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (From User talk:Sandstein to consolidate conversation)
 * , no, the closure was not premature. AfDs run for seven days, and this time has elapsed. They can be relisted if there is little discussion and more discussion can lead to a clearer consensus. That is not the case here, since many people have expressed their view. Each AfD is a separate discussion, and it takes other AfDs into consideration only insofar as the participants do so in their comments.  Sandstein   18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The closure was premature, despite the fact that AfDs run for 7 days. The history:
 * from 18:07, 17 January 2020 to 06:22, from 18 January 2020 clearly indicates that the discussion ongoing before the closure at at 06:52, 18 January 2020,
 * while this entry 06:52, 18 January 2020 (exactly the same time) shows that a participate wished to respond, demonstrating that the discussion had not come to a conclusion.
 * A note at the top of the nomination made it clear that there were similar AfDs taking place with many of the same particpants, another indication that the Wikipedia community was discussing approaches how to handle similar situations, creating an opportunity for consensus to develop, which affect and informs OUTCOMES. Is it not in the benefit of the community to let this AfD discussion continue? Or better, asked, what the advantage of closing it?
 * The closer's statement did not address the alternatives to deletion, making it incomplete, particularly in light of the above-mentioned history.
 * While technically correctly, there no usefulness to the community to have ended the discusion, and there is no reason to not allow it to run its course.Djflem (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus had be achieved, there was no purpose to continuing the discussion. This is in AfD, closing this and letting it take course at WP:REFUND seem appropriate. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a flawed closure.Djflem (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review
A deletion review has been opened: Deletion review/Log/2020 January 22, though there appears to be problems with template.Djflem (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)