Deletion of Methodist churches in Leicester

Comment: per . The sourcing of the list entries is primary, at best, with little indication that they would be notable on their own. Either way, Wikipedia is not a directory. The article should have remained deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Methodist churches in Leicester is obviously a notable topic as demonstrated by the current sourcing. All the delete !voters are viewing this as a list article and invoking NOTDIR, ignoring the notability of the topic. Deletion and recreation of a prose article is not viable because we would not |preserve the edit history which contains significant contributions of sources etc. I would happily trim the current list in the article, perhaps moving it to the talk page, and begin re-working the article with additional prose and new sectioning. However I am reluctant to do that while it is still at AfD. Decide it's a notable topic already and people can get to work improving it and addressing the NOTDIR concerns
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: ping|Levivich|MarkH21|Peterkingiron}} and {{u|Doncram}} from the previous |AfD make the most compelling, rational, and correct policy-based reasons for deletion, draftification/userification, or merge (which I'd prefer in that order) here. Djflem and Pontificalibus make references to , which is incorrect, and either, in part or in whole, the basis of their arguments
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:GNG)

Comment: This list fails under the ''policy'' #6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: I would '''conditionally support''' the ''merge'' supported by {{ping|Ross-c|Hut 8.5}}, ''but'' this article cannot wait for that merge to be carried out and, given the controversial nature of this article, |consensus to merge with the target should be '''discussed at the talk page of the ''proposed'' target article'''. It's ''not'' our place to deliver edicts to merge said content into a target. Thus, I think a merger is ultimately appropriate ''down the road'', but that the correct outcome as an |alternative to deletion is to '''draftify''' this list which fails the above-noted policies for lists and lists, categories, and navigation templates. It's non-qualifying encyclopedic content and cannot remain in the '''Main:''' namespace. While it's being draftified, incubated, and so forth, a parallel discussion can emerge on the talk page of the proposed target. But, at present, |consensus is now firmly ''against'' "keep"-ing this article, and since "merge" is a variant on "keep," we really do only have two (three, actually) possible outcomes:  delete, draftify, or userify. Userify isn't likely a good option as there's a number of willing editors to contribute
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CON||WP:ATD||WP:CON)

Comment: or else deprecate . I can't think of a more obvious example of NOTDIR than "List of all X in City Y". We are not a telephone book or a travel guide. Do we want to list all the pizza parlors in Leicester? All the people named Smith in Leicester? Sheesh. It's an ''encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: or optionally '''draftify/merge''' if someone wants to actually do that. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation of the type prohibited by  point 6. "List of Methodist churches in Leicester" is essentially the same as the "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" mentioned in that policy, with religion substituted for food. Granted, the title isn't "List of Methodist churches in Leicester", but that's basically what the page is. It's certainly a list and not an article, in particular there's essentially no prose. It doesn't have navigational value because hardly any of the entries are links. Regarding the sources discussed above, they seem to me to be discussing the topic of Methodism in Leicester (or Leicestershire), which suggests that Methodism in Leicester may well be a notable topic. However this isn't an article about Methodism in Leicester, any more than a list of restaurants in France is an article about French cuisine. If someone does want to use the contents of this page to write an article about Methodism in Leicester then that's fine with me and I'd be happy for it to be moved to draft space for that purpose. But the fact that someone could use the sources in this page to write a completely different article is hardly a reason to keep it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: In addition to the notability of the group (i.e. not that there are sources on the individual churches), this list falls under the ''policy'' #6: (the exceptions to {{tq|There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists}} per ). In particular, "Methodist churches in Leicester" is no different from the given example of {{tq|"restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y"}} in NOTDIR#6, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the intersection of "Methodist churches" and "churches in Leicester" is {{tq|a culturally significant phenomenon}} (the only permissible exception in NOTDIR#6
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:LISTN)

Comment: Draftify''' fails  woefully; most of the listing of churches are unlinked churches, not even |redlinks. Most of the "keep" arguments are |vague waves and incorrect as lists, like navboxes and portals, are ''navigation aids''. Thus,  does '''not''' apply...full stop. This is, unquestionably, a ''list'', regardless of how it is ''titled'' (i.e., List of Methodist churches in Leicester). There's nothing here worth keeping, so this should be (a) deleted, without prejudice to recreation as a pared down list of bluelinked Methodist churches in Leicester or, considering |alternatives to deletion, (b) draftified
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:REDLINKS||WP:VAGUEWAVES||WP:GNG||WP:ATD)

Comment: To expand on what I said above, since it was raised by Bookscale, this list ''does'' fail  in that every entry is at least supposed to link to a bluelinked article (that's the principal reason of a ''list'', which this ''is''). Per , ''some'' |redlinks are acceptable, ''if'' each redlinked entry would meet our otability|notability guideline(s). Even still, per , since these are primarily navigational aids, ''most'' (a substantial majority) of the churches should be bluelinks. We don't have that. Like {{u|Lightburst}} and {{u|MarkH21}}, I favour deletion here as there is nothing in the |history worth keeping beyond a ''simple listing'' of the churches and some bibliographic references. However, one |alternative to deletion that would also likely survive |DRV is draftification in that no one would be pleased but it would (a) get this non-qualifying list article out of Google-indexed '''Main:''' namespace (for those arguing deletion), (b) preserve history (for those arguing "keep" or "redirect"), and (c) allow editors to work on this list, ODEADLINES|without deadlines, in non-indexed '''Draft:''' namespace. Discussions could continue on ''what'' to include in the  list, without said fear of having a deadline and then a strong |consensus could emerge. As long as it's being edited, or discussions are taking place, there'd be no rationale for deletion ''in that namespace''. And, we've got quite a deletion history here from this, so this would save having to re-add those tags to the talk page. '''End result:'''  everyone would satisfice without the outcome
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:CSC||WP:REDLINK||WP:N||WP:CLN||WP:ATT||WP:ATD||WP:DRV||WP:NODEADLINES||WP:CON)