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 keep. MBisanz talk 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of local Methodist churches

List of local Methodist churches (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)

No evidence or indication that the collection of notable local Methodist churches is in itself sufficiently notable as to warrant a list-article in Wikipedia. Furthermore the universe of local Methodist churches is sufficiently large (there are at least 400 churches in Category:Methodist churches) and the reasons for individual churches to be notable (these might include architecture of the church building, the church's significance to one of the several subdenominations of Methodism, and other aspects of the history of the church congregation, building or ministers) is sufficiently diverse that this is pretty much guaranteed to be an indiscriminate list. Orlady (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying, harassment, evil: I object to editor Orlady starting this AFD. Orlady has pursued a campaign of harassment and bullying for a number of years now, against me, but ceased for a while. This AFD and a few other recent edits indicate that the editor is has resumed following my edits again and started contending. There is no good purpose served by Orlady doing this, and plenty of reason that Orlady should not.
I assume since the article is short and new that there will be some other editors who will choose to discuss this, and perhaps may even chide me for taking note of the editor's long pattern of bullying. Well, the editor has several times expressed hatred against me, and has in fact followed a long pattern of truly uncivil, deeply uncivil editing. The purpose, implicitly is to drive me away from Wikipedia and/or to seek attention and/or to claim value to Wikipedia for contending against me. --doncram 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It's a sourced, innocous, basic list of notable items. Of course there are a good number of notable Methodist churches, and among other things the architecture of Methodist churches reflects something about Methodists and the religion itself, and it will serve the world well actually to have a developed list-article about these. It complements Category:Methodist churches in the United States and Category:Methodist churches. See wp:CLT for an essay/guideline about the value of complementary list-articles, categories, and navigation templates. Editor Orlady has unnecessarily ridiculed, mocked, and contended against other list-articles with which I have been associated; e.g. List of round barns. No good purpose is served by opening a new dispute.--doncram 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example on the usefulness of having a list-article, it is clear immediately that some of the most historically significant Methodist churches have no wikipedia article; [[Heptonstall Methodist Church is covered only in a Heptonstall article and the St. John’s Methodist Church, Arbroath, one of the very first Methodist church buildings, built in 1772, is currently a redlink. Categories and navboxes obviously don't include these. The list-article provides place to list, identify significant ones that do need articles. --doncram 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few days ago I questioned the purpose of this list. I have been working to make the article "United Methodist Church" better in terms of content and form. This list is linked to that page, and this is probably the only way someone would ever end up finding it. The list lists two Methodist Churches, but there are over 33,000 in the United States alone, with thousands more outside the US. I believe that the list represents one persons attempt to make their favorite church(es) have a place on the wiki. Is this enough to keep this list? The United Methodist Church has countless churches, and the edit wars that continue on the main article page with people changing pictures to "their" church is endless. There are many churches that the denomination would consider notable (in fact it would consider all churches notable), but only a few that it lists as historically notable to the story of the denomination, like Lovely Lane Chapel, or John's Street Methodist Church, or Barratt's Chapel. The two listed are not among this more relevant list. I recommend that the article/list be deleted and that the following link be put on the page instead: http://archives.umc.org/Directory/ChurchDirectory.asp?ptid=1&mid=222 as this link will let the user find all UM churches rather than these two "randomly" selected churches. Just my thoughts......--Revmqo (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Revmqo seems to have accepted the validity of the list-article, signified by multiple contributions to the article by Revmqo. I think Revmqo was suspicious of the short, starter list with just 2 entries that I had started, working alphabetically starting in Alabama, and has noted the addition of Barratt's Chapel, etc., which i added in response to here. So I think only the deletion nominator supports deletion. --doncram 23:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer support deletion. I realize that everyone didn't agree with my initial comments, but the list had only two entries and did more to detract from the "United Methodist Church" article at that point, than to aid it. Now that we've whipped the page into shape, it is less one point of view.--Revmqo (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, your speedy-deletion nomination of the just-then-started list-article was properly rejected by another editor. In your nomination, I believe you suggested that the existing categories sufficed; you seemed unaware of wp:CLT. And, why contend with deletion nominations, rather than first discussing the merit and possible content of the list-article, at its Talk page? Anyhow, there is no interest by me in listing all 33,000 churches that you mention; this is by definition a list of notable ones, not a directory. It has since been developed somewhat to include some more notable ones. --doncram 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The page did not meet Wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion, which are intentionally very narrow (speedy deletion applies only in clear-cut cases). Different criteria apply here at WP:AFD. --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Duh, I didn't say otherwise. I don't object to an editor who is unfamiliar with lists to having some concern when encountering a list in his/her area (apparently Methodism). I do object to an experienced editor who has great familiarity with lists, opening and continuing a frivolous AFD. However, let's please limit this AFD to discussing the merit of the AFD. Thank you. --doncram 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak Delete Possibly "keep" with a changed title, "List of notable local Methodist churches", some of which will also have their own article and others only an entry in the list. Also, the first couple sections would be appropriate in an article on Methodist church architecture. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi there. You also may not be very familiar with list-articles, I am guessing, I hope you don't mind my presuming. The word "notable" is implicit. It has been held in other discussions about list-articles that it is not necessary or helpful to include that word explicitly. Only notable ones are to be included. No one has questioned the inclusion of any one of 15 so-far-added items. Yes, about the suggestion towards a possible, potential split of article to have a separate one on Methodist church architecture (which would be naturally supported by having this main list-article). Thanks. --doncram 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, standard index list of notable topics that satisfies WP:LISTPURP, as a complement to the categories for the listed articles per WP:CLN. That there are many reasons why a local church might have achieved notability, that doesn't make the list indiscriminate any more than any other list of X for which not every instance of X is notable. That's actually a good reason for having the list in addition to categorizing: the list can annotate the entry's importance and also provide for alternate groupings and organizing methods. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm just slightly concerned over the usage of the term "local". Local to what, exactly? If you were to incorporate churches from all over the world that pass notability guidelines, at some point it'd cease being a list of local churches because England would not be considered local to the USA. I wouldn't even consider a church in California to be local to say, Nevada. It's such a vague yet specific term. Now if you intended the usage of the term "local" to mean "public", the list should be re-named List of public Methodist Churches to avoid confusion over the term "local". All of that aside, there is merit in having a list of Methodist churches that pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename List of public Methodist Churches. As I said above, the usage of the term "local" will be confusing to a lot of people and the meaning of it as a way of saying "public" is not universal in all countries. It would be far less confusing and more to the point to use the term "public" in this situation. If the list is to contain private churches that pass notability guidelines, the article would be good as List of Methodist Churches or something along those lines. I just don't like the usage of the term "local" since for most of the world's citizens "local" means "something that is local to me" and seeing a church in another country will be confusing. As far as the list goes, it's perfectly reasonable to have a list of notable Methodist churches, as it's not against the rules to have lists of notable architecture lumped together by function (churches, bridges, etc).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but that argument is utter crap. So what if there exist some articles on individual churches that are not well developed. The list-article topic is wikipedia-notable. No one has questioned the notability of a single item out of 15 so far included. Your guess that the list-article could possibly descend into crap, is not a valid argument in any AFD. To others, editor Orlady is very familiar with issues of notability of items for list-articles, him- or herself maintaining one frivolous sounding list-article about bow tie wearers. And Orlady has long history of defence of an article List of Masonic buildings where similar concerns about potential amorphism of topic were claimed by inexperienced and/or narrowly focused Masonic editors, where Orlady was effective in countering that such claims were bunk. In context, O's suggestion here is hypocritical. --doncram 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a personal attack, to point out that an argument is utter crap. More specifically, your argument seems to fall under WP:LIKELYVIOLATION, recognized as an invalid AFD argument. Could you please respond to the point, i.e. make your best shot at an argument for deletion? You did not respond to the accusation that your argument is crap.
  • I do indeed believe this entire AFD is personally motivated, i.e. it is biased and personally directed and frivolous--I don't believe the nominator can be serious, actually. It seems incredible that this AFD was opened, and not yet withdrawn by the nominator. Why would Orlady not take aim at any other list of church articles and nominate one of them for AFD, rather than the one I happen to have just started, if as he/she indicates he/she has been focussing upon others, too? I do think that a long history of personal attacks and bullying is evidence of bias, and that bias is blinding this editor to come up with this AFD and with absurd arguments, which the editor knows are wrong. Why not seek to avoid the appearance of bias, personal attacks and bullying, by choosing something else to attack? Yes, please NPA and please avoid appearance of such. --doncram 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either be civil or don't post. It's that simple. --Nouniquenames 19:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offtrack, or perhaps suggesting concession by the deletion nominator that this AFD should never have been opened. Please keep AFD comments on the subject of deletion. --doncram 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First it was nominated in it's old form.... that is a list of 2 churches. Much has been done to improve the article since. Second, the term "local" is an entirely appropriate and source-able term when referring to a church within Methodist denominations. --Revmqo (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what aspect, though? If it's a term used in a way other than "this is local to myself personally" in how the term "local" is used 99% of the time, it needs to be sourced and elaborated on in the article to explain how the term differs from the typical usage of the term local. Most of the times I've seen the term used, it's used in reference to something that was local to another topic, such as the church being local to the town of Town-ville or that John Smith went to his local church.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you accept that there can be more than one meaning to the word "local"? You seem to be wrapped around one definition, but there are in fact more definitions of the word. At this point the word is only used in the title. The appropriate reference would be ¶201 of "The United Methodist Book of Discipline, 2008". Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2008. I am not sure how to put a reference in the title of a page. My earlier comment was only to show that it is an appropriate use. If you want to move the page to one with a new title, go ahead as far as I am concerned, but the word is used appropriately.--Revmqo (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is offtrack from the AFD, which should be closed. Could you two please move your discussion of a possible rename to Talk:List of local Methodist churches. I will copy (update: did copy) your discussion to there. --17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussions of article naming frequently occur as part of WP:AFD discussions -- as article names sometimes affect perceptions of article notability. I see no particular reason to complicate matters by splitting off a separate discussion in another location. --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As if to defend the merit of this frivolous AFD? Well, Revmqo and I have both posted other comments in the discussion about use of word "local" or not, at the appropriate place for discussion of such, at Talk:List of local Methodist churches, and discussion is continuing there. --doncram 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and if we get this list anywhere close to being comprehensive, it will be a perfect example of a directory. Lists of churches can be appropriate, but only on a smaller scale: something like List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove, which has a clear geographical boundary, or List of Strict Baptist churches, which discusses a comparatively small group with relatively few churches. Given the number of Methodist churches and their distribution throughout the world, this is way way too broad. This is why we have the subcategories of Category:Methodist churches — the category is mostly impervious to nonnotable churches, and it prevents users from thinking that we're trying to present a comprehensive list of all Methodist churches. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it make sense to create and maintain a list-article that lists a few arbitrarily selected individual Methodist churches (there were two listed when I started this AfD; now there are 15 on the list), when we already know that the universe of listable items is very large -- because Wikipedia's Methodist churches categories contains articles about several hundred Methodist churches? (It's hard to determine the total number of articles, since some appear in more than one subcategory of Category:Methodist churches. There are 405 churches in the Methodist church buildings-by-century categories, and I know that many church articles aren't in those categories. In geographic categories, there are 37 churches in the UK, 46 in Kentucky, 93 in New York state, 44 in Ohio, 47 in Tennessee, and more in other U.S. states.) How is the scope of this list article being defined, if it can't include all the Methodist churches that have articles? --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the list is all Methodist churches that have articles. The list can be broken up as needed. This article isn't even two weeks old yet, so the fact that it currently only contains 15 isn't important. A lack of current completeness is not an argument for deletion (see WP:NOTCLEANUP) Ryan Vesey 19:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why set out to create a list that is clearly inherently unmaintainable? As it currently exists, the elements on this list appear to be an arbitrary sample of somewhere between 1 percent and 3 percent of the universe of Methodist churches that have articles. There are plenty of ways that sublists could be defined, such as a list of churches significant in the history of Methodism, lists by geography or denomination, and lists of Methodist church buildings by architectural style. When the size of the potential list is already clearly indicated by the size of an existing category for the list topic, why set out to create an omnibus list that is obviously going to have too broad a scope to be maintainable? --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2004-2005, Wikipedia had a single master list of titles of articles about National Register properties, but that list was broken up 7 years ago (in December 2005), when the number of list entries appears to have been similar to the number of Methodist churches that have articles now. When the list of National Register properties was first initiated in May 2004, it may not have been obvious that there were going to be more individual articles than could be listed in one place, but it should not be necessary to repeat that mistake now with the list of Methodist churches. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with caveats. (1) The recent name change was an improvement and needs to be kept. (2) The first sentence of the lede needs to include the word 'architecture' (see Body_of_Christ#The_Church for alternative meanings of the word 'church' in this context). (3) The lede needs to include an inclusion criteria, something like 'buildings built as or primarily used as places of congregation and/or worship by Methodist groups' (see Central Hall for Methodist buildings which are not referred to as churches). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_local_Methodist_churches
No tags for this post.