Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:07, 14 January 2020

Congregational Churches in Leicester

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Congregational Churches in Leicester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list with no notable entries, with little evidence of the topic being notable itself (emphasis on the "churches", not "Congregationalism in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH₂₁ 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

--Doncram (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁ 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁ 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁ 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁ 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. No notable entries. Also WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite specific part of policy and explain how you are applying it?Djflem (talk) 08:11, 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 Misplaced Pages:UGLY, but Misplaced Pages:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Misplaced Pages is not. — MarkH₂₁ 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How does it not really?Djflem (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The only information value here is as a directory of Methodist churches. That’s not valuable or an accepted reason per WP:NOTDIR. — MarkH₂₁ 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Not valuable is a Misplaced Pages:I DON'T LIKE IT argument. Misplaced Pages:NOTDIR says that Misplaced Pages articles are not "Simple listings" without context information and that information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. There is room in this article for adding prose to annotated list.Djflem (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename List of Congregational churches in Leicester, per 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 and another contributor's "no notable entries", which exactly fits 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. Congregationalism in Leicester or a prose Congregational churches in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁ 23:02, 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 Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists.Djflem (talk) 23:13, 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. — MarkH₂₁ 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned it 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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Misplaced Pages:SURMOUNTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

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. — MarkH₂₁ 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Since quotes were requested in the related Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, here are some from policies and guidelines.
From the policy Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, already previously linked:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.

— WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.... Misplaced Pages 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.

— WP:NOTDIR

From the guideline Misplaced Pages: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:CSC

WP:NOTDIR is what the other editors are referring to when they mention directory in AfD. — MarkH₂₁ 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are more specific considerations that pertain to this AfD than the broad sweeping statements above. The bold is mine:

From: guideline Misplaced Pages: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: guideline Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:NOTDIR#7. Simple listings without context information...Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.

From: essay Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Misplaced Pages:SURMOUNTABLE "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup"...Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet...Misplaced Pages has no deadline.

Any specific relevant, detailed, pertinent quotes that you feel are relevant are welcome. Keep in mind that "valuable/useful" information is subjective, there is no policy that any item on a list has to be notable, and NOT DIR provides for lists with prose explanations of its items.Djflem (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems with what you've attempted to use as arguments:

• Sure, where we disagree on the MOS guideline 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 “Congregational churches” and “churches in Leicester” is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs) 02:07, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

WP: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: for example...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.

Where does it suggest, as you claim, that these article should not be created? It doesn't. FYI, this is an example of the situation being referred to:Mayor of London, which is a parent article & subsequent list.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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. — MarkH₂₁ 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please identify the parent article into which this list better placed? Because that is what the the guideline says, NOT that stand-alone lists shouldn't be created.Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this list should exist at all by WP:NOTDIR#6. But supposing it didn't violate that policy, notice that there are multiple parent articles. Pick the closest one. If Congregational churches in Leicester was a prose article, then that could contain a list. If not, then Leicester. If neither of these two exist, then Leicestershire. And so on. — MarkH₂₁ 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please identify the multiple parent articles, or simply the best one and explain why you think this list should be merged into it. Thank-you. (WP:DIR#6 is discussed below).Djflem (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Read my comment. You'll see three of them and you'll see that I don't think the list should be merged into any of them. — MarkH₂₁ 08:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So then we agree, carefully considering whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article, there is no appropriate parent article. Therefore, as the policy clearly states, the stand-alone list is appropriate.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your second sentence is entirely false unless you choose to misread non-violation as acceptance, ignore that WP:CSC is not a policy, and ignore that the stand-alone list is inappropriate by the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. — MarkH₂₁ 09:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:DIR#7: A thorough Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, but that annotated lists are Misplaced Pages. 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) 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, DIR#7 excludes simple lists but does not say that all annotated lists are acceptable. Not violating DIR#7 but violating DIR#6 is still a problem. — MarkH₂₁ 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We discuss what a guideline does say, not what it does not say. See below for DR#6:Djflem (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so talking about DIR#7 is pointless. It doesn't say that this article belongs as you seem to suggest. — MarkH₂₁ 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:DIR#6: Can you cite the specific part of Misplaced Pages: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) 21:00, 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. — MarkH₂₁ 21:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification to An article on Churches in Leicester is probably fine: such an article could certainly exist if it was a properly sourced prose article. There's no properly referenced material here worth merging anywhere though. — MarkH₂₁ 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to produce a target article for this list, which actually is a basis for it, should you decide to do so. A more thorough Misplaced Pages:BEFORE would have demonstrated that there are RS, some of which are in the list itself.Djflem (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I sure you are aware that User:MarkH21 does not get to decide what is culturally significant. See: WP:LISTN, which 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 Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages 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) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not get to decide, but that's irrelevant. There needs to be evidence given here that "Congregational churches in Leicester" is a culturally significant cross-categorization. Might I remind you that Misplaced Pages policies supersede Misplaced Pages guidelines. Plus LISTN literally mentions and defers to NOTDIR#6 for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. — MarkH₂₁ 09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Was simple responding to your claim 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., in which you are deciding what is culturally significant. Let's leave it to this RS: "The ancient borough: Protestant Nonconformity: A History of the County of Leicester: Volume 4". Victoria County History. 1958. pp. 390–394. Retrieved January 11, 2020. The Congregational chapel in Bond Street was founded in 1800...., which incidentally, brings the the list over the the general notability guidelines, making this AfD moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

I can't have an opinion on what is or isn't culturally significant? Re GNG, I don't see how giving one reliable listing of Congregational churches demonstrates significant coverage from multiple reliable sources of the topic "Congregational churches in Leicester". GNG (a guideline) also does absolutely nothing to dispel any concerns about violating DIR#6 (a policy). — MarkH₂₁ 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As one hopes you are fully aware (otherwise I would suggest recusing yourself) Misplaced Pages:GNG are the basis for deciding many AfDs. And yes, you are welcome to your opinion about cultural significance, but it's just that, an opinion, based in Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it, a non-valid argument, which so far is your claim about DIR#6. If you would like to brush off arguments because they come from guidelines and are not policies, I would suggest that you confine your comments to strict policy-based ones and not your POV interpretations.Djflem (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Congregational churches for the same reasons as given already in the AFD on Methodist churches in Leicester. 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. --Doncram (talk) 05:45, 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. — MarkH₂₁ 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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 Congregational 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 Congregational 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 Congregational churches have more commonality with the Congregational churches elsewhere in England (like the Methodist ones which were visited by John Wesley have that in common), the significant Congregational churches are sensibly discussed together, 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) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

*Delete/partial merge Misplaced Pages is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed. Reywas92 07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Have (temporarily) struck the above by Reywas92 as double-dipping is not permitted in AfD discussions. Please self-edit: strike as you see fit.Djflem (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to strike the entire comment. Pinging @Reywas92:. — MarkH₂₁ 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, there are three of these lists up and I missed that I already voted here after commenting on the others. Reywas92 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to to the discussion and specify your policy based reasons, otherwise the comment is Misplaced Pages:VAGUEWAVE & Misplaced Pages:JUSTNOTNOTABLEDjflem (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Congregational Churches in Leicester has been moved to Congregational churches in Leicester per MOS:AT

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates