From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Many "keep" opinions are pure votes and do not argue why the list should be kept. It is true that notability for lists is a difficult and often controversial issue, but that makes it all the more important that people argue why such lists should be kept even absent coverage of the list topic in reliable sources - and only one editor, Pontificalibus, is making arguments to the effect that such coverage exists. Sandstein 06:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Methodist Churches in Leicester

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Methodist Churches in Leicester (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NOTE: Methodist Churches in Leicester has been moved to Methodist churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

There's a category for this, and most of these would not meet WP:NOTE. I feel it does not serve a purpose. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:
-- Doncram ( talk) 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
off-topic
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) reply
The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. -- Doncram ( talk) 07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Covered more extensively at this user talk section, but:
  1. 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.
  2. I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I requested that Djflem 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. — MarkH21 talk 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment the above cited WP:LISTN states:

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, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Djflem ( talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

In this case there is no demonstrated notability, Wikipedia is not intended to be a list of every little thing. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists and Wikipedia:CSC cite other considerations. Djflem ( talk) 22:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
But the topic of "Methodist churches" is clearly valid in the world, and it is reasonable to have a List of Methodist churches (which we do have) and for editors to exercise editorial discretion in splitting it out geographically as seems necessary to keep the size of list down. However, the overall list is not too large, since the United States section was split out a long time ago, and it is feasible and reasonable to cover Methodist churches of Leicester in the main list-article's section on the United Kingdom. So i !vote "Merge" below. About the list-item significance of each separate church, i.e. whether it should be mentioned, that is a question for editors involved in developing/maintaining the world-wide list-article. In discussion at its Talk page, they can decide if they want to limit the list to just places proven already to be individually Wikipedia-notable or to allow other items that seem significant and head off creation of separate articles for each one. That is how this is supposed to work. I don't see any relevance of discussion about "Lists of X of Y", that is not what is happening here. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or redirect. This is a list of Methodist churches in one area of England, which does not have a lot of useful information for readers. But the topic is clearly within the domain of List of Methodist churches#United Kingdom. Any useful content/sources should be merged to there. We are obligated to look for wp:ATD Alternatives to Deletion and this is a good one available here. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment:seems a rather long list to incorporate into target, but not opposed. Djflem ( talk) 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The deletion nominator states "There's a category for this, ..." as part of why they feel it "does not serve a purpose." The nominator appears to be unaware of wp:CLNT about how lists and categories (and navigation templates) are complementary. Usually, if there is a category then there can be a list. The list can cite sources, include photos, include coordinates and show maps, and otherwise provide substantial information that a category cannot. It also can be extremely useful by including redlinks for items that should have articles (as supported by sources establishing significance) and by including "blacklink" coverage of items that are somewhat significant and can be covered in the list without having to create separate articles about them, thereby heading off article creation. Categories cannot do that; they seem to demand more creation of articles. Here, about Methodist churches in Leicester there should be and is a corresponding list-article already at a higher level. The Leicester category is useful, though, for bringing our attention to at least two Methodist churches not yet covered in the List of Methodist churches in England list. Going forward, Jerod Lycett, please do read and try to understand wp:CLNT. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES also speaks to this. Djflem ( talk) 19:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The fact that we have a category means it's not useful for tracking, and given that the vast majority of the list is not notable means the list itself has to serve a purpose. Leicseter has not had an effect on Methodism, and Methodism has not had an effect on Leicsester. I should have stated this more clearly, but since WP:NOTDIR, this also sets a precedent of having tens of thousands of "List of {sect/denomination} {religious buildings} in {municipality/region}". I will say here, I support the idea to Merge it, but I don't think it's what Wikipedia is about to have lists like this. If a place or sect had an influence on the other (strong ties) then I could see listing it out like this. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 11:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply
There is not a corresponding category. The Category:Methodist churches in Leicestershire is for churches in the county of Leicestershire, not for churches in Leicester. Neither of the two churches currently in the category are in the city of Leicester. There is no Category:Methodist churches in Leicester because we don't have any articles on such churches.---- Pontificalibus 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Yeah, i wondered about that myself, whether those churches were in Leicester proper or elsewhere in Leicestershire. Whatever, it still makes sense to add those two to the List of Methodist churches and to merge/redirect the AFD subject. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename (as suggested) but better Delete -- At one stage in WP's development, lists with redlinks provided a useful means of identifying where articles were needed, but that time has passed. However, the general consensus is that most local churches are NN, so that converting the list to redlinks would invite articles on NN churches, which would then have to go through AFD. I am sure the Methodist Church will have a website that will list all its churches; and they will update it as churches close and (less often) open. A list such as this has a grave risk of ceasing to be correct if not maintained. Note: Castle Donnington is in Leicestershire (but not Leicester). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply
No one is saying that the list should be converted to redlinks. Maybe your perspective comes down to "redirect" rather than "merge" because you might think that there is no content worth merging (besides the two bluelink ones i added, which are apparently elsewhere in Leicestershire). Either way leaves a redirect. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
I am not opposed to changing it from a list to a regular article, and would support the keep in that case. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 11:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
NOT in violation of above mentioned WP:NOTDIRECTORY that clearly states:Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic, which this article list clearly does. Djflem ( talk) 17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Nope, the article as it stands is a clear violation of #7 "Simple listings". You are quoting the part of the policy that is applicable only to lists of associated topics, such as quotations.---- Pontificalibus 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
In other words, a opening explanation providing context information as cited in #7 - Simple listings without context information - would resolve the issue. Yes, an introductory first paragraph would be good, but its current lack speaks to the state of the article ( Wikipedia:UGLY) not the validity of it. Djflem ( talk) 22:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand with referenced content and prose, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Honestly I don't see enough material available to justify having a separate article about Methodism in Leicester. Methodism is not even mentioned in the Leicester article, which does cover the building of a cathedral and some other stuff about other churches which were important in Leicester. The " notable topic" source identified by Pontificalibus does assert that John Wesley came to Leicester in 1853 to preach, came again in 1857, preached in 1893, and came again in 1894, but didn't he visit lots of places? I did use the source to develop a bit about the Millstone Lane site in the article. Perhaps a sentence or two can be added to sort of "describe" one or a few more, but there is no content about architecture or anything much. The source is mainly a prose list of churches, like in other sections it is a prose list about churches of other denominations. I currently think the Millstone Lane item is worth merging over to the main List of Methodist churches article, but probably not much more. If more information comes available and the sublist of Methodist churches in Leicester is greatly expanded within the main list, it could conceivably be split back out again in the future, but I don't think that is likely any time soon. !Votes to "keep and expand with prose" assume there are both sources and editor interest not apparent. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Searching through contemporary newspapers I am finding lots of articles devoted to the topic. For example here although the article reproduces speeches etc, the first part describes the architecture and facilities of this new chapel in detail.---- Pontificalibus 08:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to List of Methodist churches#United Kingdom Draftify or delete: Unless someone goes ahead and rewrites the article into a separate article about Methodism in Leicester, this article should be considered as a list of Methodist churches in Leicester. There are only two zero notable entries in the list and I don't see how the list really fulfills any of the three main roles in WP:LISTPURP separately from the overarching list - only very weak cases could be made for any of the three. It's also not convincing that "Methodist churches in Leicester" is notable as a whole (as opposed to "Methodism in Leicester"). — MarkH21 talk 08:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (two replaced by zero 22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)) (struck out and replaced !vote 18:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)) reply
A merge to what is clearly intended to be a "very limited list" of chapels in the world would be entirely inappropriate. There are now sources in this article to satisfy WP:GNG for the topic "Methodist Churches in Leicester".-- Pontificalibus 08:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The main list is not intended to be very limited. It is intended to include all notable Methodist churches. You must be basing your judgment about its intent from fact it only has 14 U.K. members which was all those in corresponding categories at time it was created; it certainly should be expanded to include any others now having articles and to include all the Methodist churches in U.K. that Listed buildings of level II* and higher, by the way. I created and did most of the development of List of Methodist churches (although much of that got split out in subsidiary List of Methodist churches in the United States, which has hundreds of entries, reflecting my convenient access to US NRHP database info.). I and others defended it in 2012 utter crap AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches. Another editor patiently explained several times there how lists of buildings get developed by starting at high level, adding items, splitting out sections by geographic areas as necessary to keep overall size down. We might or might not ever need to split out "List of Methodist churches in Texas", etc. But jumping to presume we need to split out "List of Methodist churches in Leicester" is jumping way too far, I don't see that there will be many list-item-notable ones to justify that split out, and it is better for covering them to have them included in context with other Methodist churches in U.K. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
By merge, I mean only move the two notable entries over – not the entire list. Unless someone rewrite this article to be a prose article instead of a list, I still don't think that this list should stand on the basis of not fulfilling the criteria of WP:LISTPURP. I also haven't checked the listed sources, but they seem to either be about "Churches in Leicester" or "Methodism in Leicester", but not necessarily "Methodist churches in Leicester". — MarkH21 talk 09:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
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.
[1], [2], [3], [4] all discuss specific Leicester Methodist Churches in detail, none of which has their own article. I don't see this as being a list article, but an article on Methodist Churches in Leicester which currently contains a bare list as a starting point, but which through WP:EDITING would discuss those churches for which detailed sources can be found. You state "Unless someone rewrite this article to be a prose article..." - that can only happen if the article is not deleted. Indeed the tag currently at the top of the article is for exactly this purpose and states "this article is in list format, but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this article, if appropriate". The reason we have such a tag is that articles like this are not summarily deleted simply for being in list format. ---- Pontificalibus 10:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Re LISTPURP, this article doesn’t really serve as a valuable source of information, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not.
Re rewriting the article as prose, there hasn’t been demonstrated interest for anyone to do so. Perhaps draftifying would be a solution. I also noticed that the two notable churches aren’t even in Leicester, so the list has no independently notable entries. — MarkH21 talk 22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
The page is well on its way to becoming a very good annotated list, which IMO is the best form for presenting this information. Djflem ( talk) 19:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
List or not, that's an editorial decision that can be taken a later date. What is clear is that there are no grounds to delete, because the notability of Methodist Churches in Leicester has been established by the addition of sources to the article.---- Pontificalibus 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
User:Pontificalibus is doing a nice job finding sources which provide some info about each of several churches, but I still don't think there is anything special about Methodist churches in Leicester or Methodism in Leicester. Now with those four sources ( [5], [6], [7], [8]) it seems that four more items could get a bit of annotation at least, although probably not separate articles. Oh I see some or all of those items are now expanded slightly with those sources. By the way, one assertion needs to be modified (the one asserting "George Street was the first purpose built Primitive Methodist chapel" sourced to this. I can't really read that, but I am guessing that this is not the first purpose-built Primitive Methodist church anywhere; it may perhaps be the first one in Leicester.
Looking at the article I think that makes about 6 appear to be noteworthy, at the level of being items in a list (not including the two outside of Leicester). These can be merged into the higher level list-article. Those items having no information besides existence, or only irrelevant info (e.g. sold for use as a furniture store; sold for use as an infant school (whatever that means)), I would deem not to be significant enough as Methodist churches to be included as items there. As some comments indicate, we don't want a directory of all Methodist churches. Editors there could discuss, perhaps disagree on the margin, but basically a list-item should have some source somewhat establishing importance. We don't need a split-out article on the ones in Leicester; it is more efficient for editors to manage a list-article about Methodist churches at a higher level. Perhaps List of Methodist churches in the United Kingdom or List of Methodist churches in England could eventually be split out, but that is a decision for editors at the higher level list-article. Perhaps the ones which John Wesley visited or preached at is interesting, and could be researched and noted there by asterisking or some other way, but this should be done not just for those in Leicester. I think "Merge" remains the best option. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/partial merge Wikipedia is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, past or present, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed and consolidated. Reywas92 Talk 07:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Can you please cite and give a specific policy based explanation of what you wish to say with the above? Djflem ( talk) 08:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Don't be petulant, it's the same reasons I stated on the other AFDs and per Doncram: notable content should be listed at List_of_Methodist_churches#United_Kingdom, the rest is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and tries to be everything. There are millions of non-notable churches, mosques, etc. and it is not our place to list them all across thousands of articles by location and denomination. Reywas92 Talk 08:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Which part of that link are you pointing to: 1.Summary-only descriptions of works 2. Lyrics databases. 3.Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or 4.Exhaustive logs of software updates? None them seem relevent here. Thanks. Djflem ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Djflem: You seem to be arguing against everything, so here. 1 and 6 of WP:NOTDIR. WP:LISTN states that the list topic must be notable. Either WP:PROVEIT or show some policy that states it gets an exception. I'm honestly tired of it at this point. Wikipedia has a barrier for inclusion, not exclusion. My, and seemingly everyone else's, argument to delete is that it fails to meet that. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: About Laurel House Publishing (currently a redlink) / "Where Leicester Has Worshipped". Maybe the existence of this book/booklet is confusing matters for some. I don't think it is a substantial source. It looks to me like a person named Andrew Moore has written two books and self-published them under name "Laurel House Publishing". Just because he chose to create a tedious/exhaustive review of churches in Leicester does not, IMO, make "churches in Leicester" a valid topic. The only other "publication" of Laurel House Publishing AFAICT is "ELLIS OF LEICESTER: A QUAKER FAMILY’S VOCATION". I am guessing that the address of Laurel House Publishing is Andrew Moore's residence. If you or I chose to list all the blades of grass in our lawn, and self-published our study, that does not make the list encyclopedic. In the U.S. there is Arcadia Publishing and Turner Publishing Company which mass-produce local history books that are marginal in quality, but do have some decent layout / editorial policy effects. For example they will publish any collection of old photos in a given town, with captions about them, which are nicely formatted. But just because an old building is pictured does not make it Wikipedia-notable (individually or as a list-item), IMO. They are predictable, exhaustive catalogs, not adequate to establish Wikipedia-notability of a topic, IMO. "Laurel House Publishing" is even lower, not registering as legitimate at all, AFAICT. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
FWIW, the address (Redacted) in Leicester is a regular house on a residential street. (Redacted) -- Doncram ( talk) 23:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Andrew Moore, per his Amazon "profile", also published a book on railroad stations in Leicestershire. Don't get me wrong ... I like this guy, I am glad he is a productive local history buff. His photos, material can be used as info in some articles probably. But I don't think his "publications" go toward establishing Wikipedia-notability of any topic. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Currently a running list with few links. Unless it is amended to a regular page on a particular church with historical impact. Otherwise, this will open the gate to proliferation of list of <insert> in each county. PenulisHantu ( talk) 00:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • 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 ) 18:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    @ DGG: However per WP:LISTN Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group., and that is my argument for the list to be deleted. I have far less concern about the notability of Churches than of Methodist Churches. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 19:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply
then call it a combination article. (The number of lists where the group itself has actual documentation for notability is about 1 in 5 ; the number of times that guideline is rejected by consensus is about 50:50. We can do whatever reasonable has consensus. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the article is a mess and needs significant expansion with some factual information, but as AfD is not cleanup, that's not a reason to delete. Article should certainly be draftified as an alternative in good faith to allow the article to be improved. Bookscale ( talk) 06:22, 18 January 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Methodist_Churches_in_Leicester&oldid=937059506"