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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:12, 22 January 2020

List of Baptist churches in Leicester

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

(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 "Baptists in Leicester"). The list does not seriously fulfill any of the three purposes of WP:LISTPURP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, opened 8 January by User:Jerodlycett and closed as delete 18 January by User:Sandstein
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, opened 12 January by User:MarkH21

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) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Christianity-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a directory of all churches in (or no longer in) existence. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the topic is referenced in the article.Djflem (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:UGLY, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and should be improved.Djflem (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn’t, except in the capacity as a directory which Wikipedia is not. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester to here even after I respond to them over there? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and that issue here is Wikipedia: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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, already previously linked:

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

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.
— WP:NOTDIR

From the guideline Wikipedia: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^talk 01:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another directory of non-notable churches in one particular British city. Ajf773 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is a policy that covers this WP:NOT#DIR. A really loose list of article-less churches with their rough location included. Ajf773 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the specific part of Wikipedia: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:

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)[reply]

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^talk 20:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a useful encyclopedic list and meets WP:LISTPURP. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But it also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: @Reywas92:. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Reywas92^Talk 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Baptist 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. (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)[reply]

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^talk 05:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I argued for a merge at Wikipedia: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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:HEY since the initation of AfD, the list has been worked on. To be considered (bold mine)

Wikipedia: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.
Wikipedia: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.
Wikipedia: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.
Wikipedia: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

Djflem (talk) 14:22, 15 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 ) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.IceFishing (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+===[[:List of Baptist churches in Leicester]]===
-<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}
-:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
-<!--Template:Afd top
-Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
-The result was '''keep'''. There appears to be a rough consensus for keeping this, although not without controversy. The article seems like it can stand for improvement, but [[WP:NOTCLEANUP|this is not the purpose of AfD]]. This is without prejudice to any further action desired on the article, including another AfD. <small>[[Wikipedia:NACD|(non-admin closure)]]</small> &ndash; [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
-===[[:List of Baptist churches in Leicester]]===
 <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
 :{{la|List of Baptist churches in Leicester}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 12#{{anchorencode:List of Baptist churches in Leicester}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Baptist_churches_in_Leicester Stats]</span>)
@@ Line 126: / Line 121: @@
 *'''Keep''' The topic easily passes [[WP:LISTN]] by virtue of detailed coverage in sources such as the [https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/leics/vol4/pp390-394#h3-0002 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. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 11:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' as a tightly defined, reliably sourced list.[[User:IceFishing|IceFishing]] ([[User talk:IceFishing|talk]]) 12:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
-{{clear}}
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>