Deletion of List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead

Comment: Unfortunately I was not able to consult quite as many book sources as I normally would for one of these lists, as it is outside my normal geographical area, but I know from having checked in the past that other sources in which relevant material can be found (in some cases, quite a lot of it) include ''Horley, Its Church and People Through Ten Centuries'' (1960), ''A thousand years of Horley and Gatwick'' (2006), ''A History of Redhill'' (3 volumes), ''Redhill and Reigate - A History and Celebration'' (recent; can't remember the year), ''The Churches of Surrey'' (1997), ''Views of Surrey Churches'' (1979) and ''The Old Parish Churches of Surrey'' (2000).  I won't be able to get hold of these imminently, but it is my intention to include material from these in the Surrey lists I have done.  I am confused by {{xt|...not sources discussing places of worship in this area as a general concept.}}: is this not exactly what the "Overview of the borough" paragraph does, or at least attempts to do?  And this paragraph relies quite a lot sourcing to the ''Victoria County History of Surrey'' and the Surrey volume of the ''Pevsner Architectural Guides|Buildings of England'' series, both of which are considered to be good-quality sources.  Also, on  (actually, more related to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria, I believe the list fulfils all "membership criteria": {{xt|If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?; Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?; Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?}}.  To answer a point raised by Ipigott: yes, I hope to write (or to see written by others, of course!) articles for the notable ones
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: This is a well-prepared, well-illustrated, richly-referenced list, mainly covering the churches in the area. It is similar to some 100 other lists in :Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in England and there is absolutely no question of considering its deletion. I hope, though, that many of the buildings in the list which do not yet have articles in their own right will be covered sooner or later. Since 2007, Hassocks5489 has been creating dozens of similar lists for Wikipedia (which have never been questioned) in addition to some 200 articles on individual churches. Lists of this kind are extremely useful to those interested in the architecture and religious history of an area and, in the context of improving Wikipedia, also provide a starting point for those wishing to develop or expand articles on the items they cover. Your suggestion that the introductory text is not consistent with the list is hardly relevant to AfD (but could of course have been raised for discussion on the talk page). In my opinion, the author should be congratulated on providing excellent background information in addition to his comments on each of the buildings in the list. I suggest the AfD be withdrawn as soon as possible. If this list were to be seen as an example of which lists are outside the scope of Wikipedia, then thousands of other lists of religious buildings all over the world would be candidates for deletion too. Beeblebrox, your assertion that "What looks like a huge pile of sources is really a bunch of... directory listings, not sources discussing places of worship in this area as a general concept," is certainly not correct. The list contains many excellent, informative sources as you will see if you take the time to look into them. I am amazed that with your long experience of Wikipedia, you went ahead with AfD without properly researching the article and its place in the encyclopedia. Lists of buildings and structures are one of Wikipedia's most useful features. There is certainly nothing in  against creating lists like this one. Indeed,  supports lists along these lines: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:LISTS)