Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead

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The result was snow keep/nomination withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead[edit]

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

I actually feel kind of bad nominating this because I can see that a lot of work went into it, but Wikipedia is not a directory of area churches, which is what this aticle is. This is no more valid than "List of Grocery stores in Cleveland" would be, even if some of the individual buildings are of historic importance. 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources which cover similar lists of churches in the area include The Churches of Surrey, Views of All the Churches and Chapelries in the County of Surrey, Notes on the Churches in the Counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey, Mentioned in Domesday Book, and Those of More Recent Date. These seem adequate to demonstrate the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. The exact organisation of this information by parish, borough or county is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. Warden (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While most of the churches listed don't have their own articles, they do get ample coverage in reliable sources. Many of them are quite old. Some have distinct characteristics such as "probably the only windmill in England in use as a church" they get coverage for. Dream Focus 23:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, this is a list article. A large part of the prose is actually general background information on the whole area and not specific to the buildings which are the supposed subject of the article. I also find it interesting that one of them is in a windmill, but we are talking about the overall notability of the concept of "places of worship in <wherever>" and on this case I don't see much evidence that that concept has been the subject of significant coverage outside of directories and primary sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the grounds that I found this interesting and thought provoking, as did who ever put this on the dyn of the en. front page. There are plenty of presidents as stated above, and that lack of similar pages for other parts of the globe it to the detriment of Wikipedia in my view. Even as as keen Richard Dawkings supporter, I find it, in my personal view, slightly insensitive to compare places of worship to Grocery shops. they are clearly very different Simuliid talk 23:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it interesting" is generally considered an invalid argument in a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know anything about an encyclopedia's criteria for keeping or deleting articles, but these lists are enormously useful to me. Church architecture is incredibly varied and yet remains utterly distinct from all other forms, completely different than palaces, castles, residences, office buildings, factories, supermarkets, etc. You might check out the Wikipedia article on "Church Architecture". I have a long term project going about adapting church designs to new residential structures, and while I don't have time to methodically seek out each and every individual church and list of churches here, every time I run across one of these lists on Wikipedia I joyfully download all the photos to my files for future reference, noting those that are especially interesting. As sources of inspiration I find nothing comparable, and it's far more productive than going at it one church at a time when one might by chance be mentioned in some Wikipedia article. It would definitely impoverish my life if lists like these were deleted. Roarshocker (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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 WP:NOTDIR against creating lists like this one. Indeed, WP:LISTS 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." --Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A model of what a list article should be. It combines history, architecture, religion, and sociology. Why should that be considered to be inappropriate for an encyclopaedia? WP needs more, not less, of this type of material. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ...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 Buildings of England series, both of which are considered to be good-quality sources. Also, on WP:LISTN (actually, more related to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria, I believe the list fulfils all "membership criteria": 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. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Exactly this sort of nomination which is forcing decent editors away from the project. It's featured quality in my opinion and a tremendous effort. Cannot understand the thinking behind this AFD, not even close to resembling a directory. As Peter says this is a model list and I would encourage this sort of quality informative list for every locality in the world.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is pretty clear already, nomination withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (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.