700:(which we do have) and for editors to exercise editorial discretion in splitting it out geographically as seems necessary to keep the size of list down. However, the overall list is not too large, since the United States section was split out a long time ago, and it is feasible and reasonable to cover Methodist churches of Leicester in the main list-article's section on the United Kingdom. So i !vote "Merge" below. About the list-item significance of each separate church, i.e. whether it should be mentioned, that is a question for editors involved in developing/maintaining the world-wide list-article. In discussion at its Talk page, they can decide if they want to limit the list to just places proven already to be individually Knowledge-notable or to allow other items that seem significant and head off creation of separate articles for each one. That is how this is supposed to work. I don't see any relevance of discussion about "Lists of X of Y", that is not what is happening here. --
1731:, 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..
1630:. Maybe the existence of this book/booklet is confusing matters for some. I don't think it is a substantial source. It looks to me like a person named Andrew Moore has written two books and self-published them under name "Laurel House Publishing". Just because he chose to create a tedious/exhaustive review of churches in Leicester does not, IMO, make "churches in Leicester" a valid topic. The only other "publication" of Laurel House Publishing AFAICT is "ELLIS OF LEICESTER: A QUAKER FAMILY’S VOCATION". I am guessing that the address of Laurel House Publishing is Andrew Moore's residence. If you or I chose to list all the blades of grass in our lawn, and self-published our study, that does not make the list encyclopedic. In the U.S. there is
808:
extremely useful by including redlinks for items that should have articles (as supported by sources establishing significance) and by including "blacklink" coverage of items that are somewhat significant and can be covered in the list without having to create separate articles about them, thereby heading off article creation. Categories cannot do that; they seem to demand more creation of articles. Here, about
Methodist churches in Leicester there should be and is a corresponding list-article already at a higher level. The Leicester category is useful, though, for bringing our attention to at least two Methodist churches not yet covered in the List of Methodist churches in England list. Going forward,
940:-- At one stage in WP's development, lists with redlinks provided a useful means of identifying where articles were needed, but that time has passed. However, the general consensus is that most local churches are NN, so that converting the list to redlinks would invite articles on NN churches, which would then have to go through AFD. I am sure the Methodist Church will have a website that will list all its churches; and they will update it as churches close and (less often) open. A list such as this has a grave risk of ceasing to be correct if not maintained. Note: Castle Donnington is in Leicestershire (but not Leicester).
1272:. Another editor patiently explained several times there how lists of buildings get developed by starting at high level, adding items, splitting out sections by geographic areas as necessary to keep overall size down. We might or might not ever need to split out "List of Methodist churches in Texas", etc. But jumping to presume we need to split out "List of Methodist churches in Leicester" is jumping way too far, I don't see that there will be many list-item-notable ones to justify that split out, and it is better for covering them to have them included in context with other Methodist churches in U.K. --
1461:
sold for use as a furniture store; sold for use as an infant school (whatever that means)), I would deem not to be significant enough as
Methodist churches to be included as items there. As some comments indicate, we don't want a directory of all Methodist churches. Editors there could discuss, perhaps disagree on the margin, but basically a list-item should have some source somewhat establishing importance. We don't need a split-out article on the ones in Leicester; it is more efficient for editors to manage a list-article about Methodist churches at a higher level. Perhaps
31:
1453:) it seems that four more items could get a bit of annotation at least, although probably not separate articles. Oh I see some or all of those items are now expanded slightly with those sources. By the way, one assertion needs to be modified (the one asserting "George Street was the first purpose built Primitive Methodist chapel" sourced to
1351:
would discuss those churches for which detailed sources can be found. You state "Unless someone rewrite this article to be a prose article..." - that can only happen if the article is not deleted. Indeed the tag currently at the top of the article is for exactly this purpose and states "this article
1144:
came to
Leicester in 1853 to preach, came again in 1857, preached in 1893, and came again in 1894, but didn't he visit lots of places? I did use the source to develop a bit about the Millstone Lane site in the article. Perhaps a sentence or two can be added to sort of "describe" one or a few more,
807:
about how lists and categories (and navigation templates) are complementary. Usually, if there is a category then there can be a list. The list can cite sources, include photos, include coordinates and show maps, and otherwise provide substantial information that a category cannot. It also can be
1460:
Looking at the article I think that makes about 6 appear to be noteworthy, at the level of being items in a list (not including the two outside of
Leicester). These can be merged into the higher level list-article. Those items having no information besides existence, or only irrelevant info (e.g.
964:
No one is saying that the list should be converted to redlinks. Maybe your perspective comes down to "redirect" rather than "merge" because you might think that there is no content worth merging (besides the two bluelink ones i added, which are apparently elsewhere in
Leicestershire). Either way
851:
The fact that we have a category means it's not useful for tracking, and given that the vast majority of the list is not notable means the list itself has to serve a purpose. Leicseter has not had an effect on
Methodism, and Methodism has not had an effect on Leicsester. I should have stated this
1638:
which mass-produce local history books that are marginal in quality, but do have some decent layout / editorial policy effects. For example they will publish any collection of old photos in a given town, with captions about them, which are nicely formatted. But just because an old building is
1149:
article, but probably not much more. If more information comes available and the sublist of
Methodist churches in Leicester is greatly expanded within the main list, it could conceivably be split back out again in the future, but I don't think that is likely any time soon. !Votes to "keep and
1259:
The main list is not intended to be very limited. It is intended to include all notable
Methodist churches. You must be basing your judgment about its intent from fact it only has 14 U.K. members which was all those in corresponding categories at time it was created; it certainly should be
1639:
pictured does not make it
Knowledge-notable (individually or as a list-item), IMO. They are predictable, exhaustive catalogs, not adequate to establish Knowledge-notability of a topic, IMO. "Laurel House Publishing" is even lower, not registering as legitimate at all, AFAICT. --
1145:
but there is no content about architecture or anything much. The source is mainly a prose list of churches, like in other sections it is a prose list about churches of other denominations. I currently think the
Millstone Lane item is worth merging over to the main
1346:
all discuss specific Leicester Methodist Churches in detail, none of which has their own article. I don't see this as being a list article, but an article on Methodist Churches in Leicester which currently contains a bare list as a starting point, but which through
1077:
In other words, a opening explanation providing context information as cited in #7 - Simple listings without context information - would resolve the issue. Yes, an introductory first paragraph would be good, but its current lack speaks to the state of the article
1369:.Re rewriting the article as prose, there hasn’t been demonstrated interest for anyone to do so. Perhaps draftifying would be a solution. I also noticed that the two notable churches aren’t even in Leicester, so the list has no independently notable entries. —
1689:. Don't get me wrong ... I like this guy, I am glad he is a productive local history buff. His photos, material can be used as info in some articles probably. But I don't think his "publications" go toward establishing Knowledge-notability of any topic. --
377:
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
1816:- the article is a mess and needs significant expansion with some factual information, but as AfD is not cleanup, that's not a reason to delete. Article should certainly be draftified as an alternative in good faith to allow the article to be improved.
1300:
By merge, I mean only move the two notable entries over – not the entire list. Unless someone rewrite this article to be a prose article instead of a list, I still don't think that this list should stand on the basis of not fulfilling the criteria of
1401:
List or not, that's an editorial decision that can be taken a later date. What is clear is that there are no grounds to delete, because the notability of Methodist Churches in Leicester has been established by the addition of sources to the
417:
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
1440:
is doing a nice job finding sources which provide some info about each of several churches, but I still don't think there is anything special about Methodist churches in Leicester or Methodism in Leicester. Now with those four sources
1592:
or show some policy that states it gets an exception. I'm honestly tired of it at this point. Knowledge has a barrier for inclusion, not exclusion. My, and seemingly everyone else's, argument to delete is that it fails to meet that.
242:
1352:
is in list format, but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this article, if appropriate". The reason we have such a tag is that articles like this are not summarily deleted simply for being in list format. ----
1210:
separately from the overarching list - only very weak cases could be made for any of the three. It's also not convincing that "Methodist churches in Leicester" is notable as a whole (as opposed to "Methodism in Leicester"). —
81:. Many "keep" opinions are pure votes and do not argue why the list should be kept. It is true that notability for lists is a difficult and often controversial issue, but that makes it all the more important that people argue
624:
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, although
324:
333:
1473:
visited or preached at is interesting, and could be researched and noted there by asterisking or some other way, but this should be done not just for those in Leicester. I think "Merge" remains the best option.
559:, but the category only contains two entries apart from this list. So if this were to be pruned to only include entries with articles, it would not have enough content to merit a standalone list. Redirecting to
1260:
expanded to include any others now having articles and to include all the Methodist churches in U.K. that Listed buildings of level II* and higher, by the way. I created and did most of the development of
1269:
1708:
Currently a running list with few links. Unless it is amended to a regular page on a particular church with historical impact. Otherwise, this will open the gate to proliferation of list of <insert:
1199:: Unless someone goes ahead and rewrites the article into a separate article about Methodism in Leicester, this article should be considered as a list of Methodist churches in Leicester. There are only
1505:
Knowledge is not a directory of every house of worship in every city, past or present, most of which are quite unremarkable. Only those that are notable or historic should be listed and consolidated.
1058:
Nope, the article as it stands is a clear violation of #7 "Simple listings". You are quoting the part of the policy that is applicable only to lists of associated topics, such as quotations.----
1329:
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.
1305:. I also haven't checked the listed sources, but they seem to either be about "Churches in Leicester" or "Methodism in Leicester", but not necessarily "Methodist churches in Leicester". —
236:
85:
such lists should be kept even absent coverage of the list topic in reliable sources - and only one editor, Pontificalibus, is making arguments to the effect that such coverage exists.
756:
or redirect. This is a list of Methodist churches in one area of England, which does not have a lot of useful information for readers. But the topic is clearly within the domain of
860:
it, but I don't think it's what Knowledge is about to have lists like this. If a place or sect had an influence on the other (strong ties) then I could see listing it out like this.
856:, this also sets a precedent of having tens of thousands of "List of {sect/denomination} {religious buildings} in {municipality/region}". I will say here, I support the idea to
535:
518:
168:
163:
905:
Yeah, i wondered about that myself, whether those churches were in Leicester proper or elsewhere in Leicestershire. Whatever, it still makes sense to add those two to the
1457:. I can't really read that, but I am guessing that this is not the first purpose-built Primitive Methodist church anywhere; it may perhaps be the first one in Leicester.
637:
often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.
195:
172:
1240:
A merge to what is clearly intended to be a "very limited list" of chapels in the world would be entirely inappropriate. There are now sources in this article to satisfy
1462:
155:
1787:
then call it a combination article. (The number of lists where the group itself has actual documentation for notability is about 1 in 5 ; the number of times that
1265:
803:: The deletion nominator states "There's a category for this, ..." as part of why they feel it "does not serve a purpose." The nominator appears to be unaware of
501:
1544:. There are millions of non-notable churches, mosques, etc. and it is not our place to list them all across thousands of articles by location and denomination.
1042:
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic
879:
40:
1132:: Honestly I don't see enough material available to justify having a separate article about Methodism in Leicester. Methodism is not even mentioned in the
481:
202:
142:
127:
1268:, which has hundreds of entries, reflecting my convenient access to US NRHP database info.). I and others defended it in 2012 utter crap AFD
257:
1466:
224:
1555:
Which part of that link are you pointing to: 1.Summary-only descriptions of works 2. Lyrics databases. 3.Excessive listings of unexplained
1136:
article, which does cover the building of a cathedral and some other stuff about other churches which were important in Leicester. The "
1172:
although the article reproduces speeches etc, the first part describes the architecture and facilities of this new chapel in detail.----
1682:
1860:
1007:
while we have no articles on individual churches. The article should be improved to describe the churches, not merely list them.----
1825:
1802:
1774:
1742:
1719:
1698:
1676:
1648:
1602:
1568:
1548:
1527:
1509:
1483:
1408:
1396:
1380:
1358:
1316:
1281:
1250:
1222:
1178:
1159:
1124:
1091:
1064:
1053:
1031:
1013:
974:
949:
918:
900:
869:
846:
825:
791:
773:
746:
709:
689:
666:
647:
601:
576:
547:
527:
510:
493:
459:
405:
389:
353:
302:
97:
218:
1365:
Re LISTPURP, this article doesn’t really serve as a valuable source of information, except in the capacity as a directory which
1387:
The page is well on its way to becoming a very good annotated list, which IMO is the best form for presenting this information.
673:
630:
626:
122:
115:
17:
891:
396:
The question of AFD etiquette is being discussed elsewhere, is not about content of this AFD. I am collapsing this myself. --
1000:
735:
1469:
could eventually be split out, but that is a decision for editors at the higher level list-article. Perhaps the ones which
214:
423:
427:
159:
1532:
Don't be petulant, it's the same reasons I stated on the other AFDs and per Doncram: notable content should be listed at
264:
443:
stop doing so. Multiple AfDs can be simultaneously open with natural discussion without asynchronous verbatim copying.
136:
132:
992:
279:
275:
151:
103:
1445:
1338:
560:
1533:
1261:
1192:
1146:
906:
757:
697:
1454:
1448:
1341:
1842:
1635:
69:
46:
657:
In this case there is no demonstrated notability, Knowledge is not intended to be a list of every little thing.
1537:
1442:
1335:
1169:
1623:
230:
1541:
945:
1022:
I am not opposed to changing it from a list to a regular article, and would support the keep in that case.
1715:
1168:
Searching through contemporary newspapers I am finding lots of articles devoted to the topic. For example
1037:
1004:
834:
1838:
1770:
1598:
1518:
Can you please cite and give a specific policy based explanation of what you wish to say with the above?
1206:
notable entries in the list and I don't see how the list really fulfills any of the three main roles in
1120:
1027:
865:
523:
506:
489:
298:
65:
1711:
1451:
1344:
1137:
996:
543:
1765:
to be deleted. I have far less concern about the notability of Churches than of Methodist Churches.
1627:
696:
But the topic of "Methodist churches" is clearly valid in the world, and it is reasonable to have a
1821:
1437:
1403:
1353:
1245:
1173:
1059:
1008:
895:
250:
890:. Neither of the two churches currently in the category are in the city of Leicester. There is no
1631:
1324:
1302:
1207:
941:
634:
419:
1694:
1672:
1644:
1589:
1479:
1348:
1277:
1155:
970:
914:
821:
769:
705:
571:
411:
401:
385:
349:
111:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1837:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1766:
1594:
1581:
1564:
1523:
1392:
1366:
1116:
1087:
1049:
1023:
861:
853:
842:
809:
787:
742:
685:
662:
643:
597:
585:
556:
485:
319:
294:
1755:
1663:
1657:
1585:
1233:
22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)) (struck out and replaced !vote 18:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC))
614:
589:
539:
1817:
1791:
is rejected by consensus is about 50:50. We can do whatever reasonable has consensus.
1686:
1079:
883:
813:
804:
760:. Any useful content/sources should be merged to there. We are obligated to look for
290:
88:
433:
I also find the verbatim copying of comments unnecessary and wasteful, which is why I
1854:
1798:
1738:
1728:
1545:
1506:
1241:
1150:
expand with prose" assume there are both sources and editor interest not apparent. --
761:
677:
1759:
Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.
1690:
1668:
1640:
1475:
1371:
1307:
1273:
1213:
1151:
966:
910:
817:
765:
701:
565:
450:
448:
Apologies for forgetting to mention the related AfDs in the original nomination. —
397:
381:
345:
337:
328:
189:
1575:
1560:
1519:
1470:
1388:
1141:
1083:
1045:
838:
783:
738:
681:
658:
639:
593:
440:
1559:
or 4.Exhaustive logs of software updates? None them seem relevent here. Thanks.
782:
Comment:seems a rather long list to incorporate into target, but not opposed.
1556:
1133:
887:
422:). In this case, I think there is a clearer case for outright deletion of
1793:
1749:
1733:
325:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester
283:
334:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester
764:
Alternatives to Deletion and this is a good one available here. --
1270:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches
1833:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1580:
You seem to be arguing against everything, so here. 1 and 6 of
316:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester
289:
There's a category for this, and most of these would not meet
25:
635:
recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes
1661:
in Leicester is a regular house on a residential street.
894:
because we don't have any articles on such churches.----
1140:" source identified by Pontificalibus does assert that
435:
185:
181:
177:
249:
1588:states that the list topic must be notable. Either
1264:(although much of that got split out in subsidiary
1244:for the topic "Methodist Churches in Leicester".--
1115:and expand with referenced content and prose, imv
674:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists
536:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
519:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
72:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1845:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1685:, also published a book on railroad stations in
1463:List of Methodist churches in the United Kingdom
534:Note: This discussion has been included in the
517:Note: This discussion has been included in the
500:Note: This discussion has been included in the
480:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1323:Certainly fulfills the first statement made in
1266:List of Methodist churches in the United States
880:Category:Methodist churches in Leicestershire
263:
8:
502:list of England-related deletion discussions
143:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
533:
516:
499:
482:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
479:
361:
1534:List_of_Methodist_churches#United_Kingdom
1193:List of Methodist churches#United Kingdom
909:and to merge/redirect the AFD subject. --
758:List of Methodist churches#United Kingdom
892:Category:Methodist churches in Leicester
1044:, which this article list clearly does.
1001:List of Methodist Churches in Leicester
812:, please do read and try to understand
736:List of Methodist churches in Leicester
45:For an explanation of the process, see
1230:
1226:
627:non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
555:That there's a corresponding category
293:. I feel it does not serve a purpose.
1467:List of Methodist churches in England
592:. Almost every entry is non-notable.
424:List of Baptist churches in Leicester
7:
1036:NOT in violation of above mentioned
428:Congregational Churches in Leicester
311:NOTE: related AFDs have been opened:
1761:, and that is my argument for the
41:deletion review on 2020 January 22
24:
882:is for churches in the county of
1628:"Where Leicester Has Worshipped"
128:Introduction to deletion process
29:
993:Methodist Churches in Leicester
631:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
557:is not an argument for deletion
280:Methodist churches in Leicester
276:Methodist Churches in Leicester
152:Methodist Churches in Leicester
104:Methodist Churches in Leicester
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
878:a corresponding category. The
561:Places of worship in Leicester
1:
1826:06:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
1803:21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
1775:19:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
1743:18:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
1720:00:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
1699:23:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1677:23:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1649:23:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1603:22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1569:22:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1549:08:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1528:08:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1510:07:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1484:23:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1409:12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1397:19:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1381:22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1359:10:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1317:09:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1282:14:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
1251:08:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1223:08:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1179:08:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1160:23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1125:16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1092:22:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1065:18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1054:17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1032:11:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1014:09:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
975:23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
950:17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
919:23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
901:09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
870:11:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
460:07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
406:07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
390:05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
354:05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
98:06:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
847:19:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
826:03:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
792:22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
774:22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
747:21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
710:22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
690:22:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
667:21:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
648:21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
602:18:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
577:14:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
548:13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
528:11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
511:11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
494:11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
303:11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
118:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1877:
1262:List of Methodist churches
1147:List of Methodist churches
1082:) not the validity of it.
936:(as suggested) but better
907:List of Methodist churches
698:List of Methodist churches
680:cite other considerations.
1725:Draftify for improvements
1636:Turner Publishing Company
412:at this user talk section
410:Covered more extensively
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1861:Pages at deletion review
1835:Please do not modify it.
1626:(currently a redlink) /
852:more clearly, but since
563:might be a good option.
420:clear-cut case to bundle
61:Please do not modify it.
1624:Laurel House Publishing
336:, opened 12 January by
327:, opened 12 January by
886:, not for churches in
835:Knowledge:LISTOUTCOMES
318:, opened 8 January by
965:leaves a redirect. --
837:also speaks to this.
633:. Lists that fulfill
116:Articles for deletion
1683:his Amazon "profile"
1503:Delete/partial merge
1040:that clearly states:
629:are touched upon in
1438:User:Pontificalibus
1681:Andrew Moore, per
1655:FWIW, the address
1632:Arcadia Publishing
1406:
1356:
1248:
1197:Draftify or delete
1176:
1062:
1011:
898:
278:has been moved to
1538:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1404:
1376:
1354:
1312:
1246:
1218:
1174:
1060:
1009:
896:
550:
530:
513:
496:
475:
474:
455:
133:Guide to deletion
123:How to contribute
96:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1868:
1753:
1710:in each county.
1666:
1665:
1660:
1659:
1579:
1540:and tries to be
1379:
1374:
1367:Knowledge is not
1315:
1310:
1221:
1216:
613:the above cited
526:
509:
458:
453:
438:
362:
320:User:Jerodlycett
268:
267:
253:
205:
193:
175:
113:
95:
93:
86:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1843:deletion review
1747:
1662:
1656:
1573:
1377:
1370:
1313:
1306:
1219:
1212:
1038:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
1005:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
522:
505:
476:
456:
449:
434:
367:
210:
201:
166:
150:
147:
110:
107:
89:
87:
77:The result was
70:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1874:
1872:
1864:
1863:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1847:
1829:
1828:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1722:
1702:
1701:
1687:Leicestershire
1679:
1652:
1651:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1536:, the rest is
1513:
1512:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1458:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1405:Pontificalibus
1385:
1384:
1383:
1373:
1355:Pontificalibus
1333:
1332:
1331:
1309:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1247:Pontificalibus
1235:
1234:
1215:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1175:Pontificalibus
1163:
1162:
1127:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1080:Knowledge:UGLY
1061:Pontificalibus
1034:
1017:
1016:
1010:Pontificalibus
1003:would violate
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
953:
952:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
897:Pontificalibus
884:Leicestershire
829:
828:
797:
796:
795:
794:
777:
776:
750:
749:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
694:
693:
692:
621:
620:
619:
618:
605:
604:
579:
552:
551:
531:
514:
497:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
452:
446:
445:
444:
431:
369:
368:
365:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
342:
341:
340:
331:
322:
287:
286:
270:
207:
146:
145:
140:
130:
125:
108:
106:
101:
75:
74:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1873:
1862:
1859:
1858:
1856:
1846:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1757:
1751:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1735:
1730:
1727:According to
1726:
1723:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1654:
1653:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1459:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1410:
1407:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1350:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1304:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1249:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1180:
1177:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1138:notable topic
1135:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:notable topic
994:
991:
988:
987:
976:
972:
968:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
951:
947:
943:
942:Peterkingiron
939:
935:
932:
931:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
899:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
836:
833:
832:
831:
830:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
806:
802:
799:
798:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
778:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
751:
748:
744:
740:
737:
734:
733:
728:
724:
721:
720:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
678:Knowledge:CSC
675:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
638:
636:
632:
628:
616:
612:
609:
608:
607:
606:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
578:
574:
573:
568:
567:
562:
558:
554:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
532:
529:
525:
524:North America
520:
515:
512:
508:
507:North America
503:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
478:
477:
461:
457:
447:
442:
437:
432:
429:
425:
421:
416:
415:
413:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
364:
363:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
314:
313:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
285:
281:
277:
274:
271:
266:
262:
259:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
216:
213:
212:Find sources:
208:
204:
200:
197:
191:
187:
183:
179:
174:
170:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
129:
126:
124:
121:
120:
119:
117:
112:
105:
102:
100:
99:
94:
92:
84:
80:
73:
71:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1834:
1832:
1813:
1792:
1788:
1767:Jerod Lycett
1762:
1758:
1754:However per
1732:
1724:
1712:PenulisHantu
1705:
1619:
1595:Jerod Lycett
1502:
1402:article.----
1328:
1229:replaced by
1203:
1200:
1196:
1188:
1187:
1129:
1112:
1041:
1024:Jerod Lycett
989:
937:
933:
875:
862:Jerod Lycett
857:
810:Jerod Lycett
800:
753:
731:
729:
726:
722:
623:
622:
610:
581:
570:
564:
486:Jerod Lycett
376:
338:User:MarkH21
329:User:MarkH21
315:
310:
295:Jerod Lycett
288:
272:
260:
254:
246:
239:
233:
227:
221:
211:
198:
109:
90:
82:
78:
76:
60:
57:
36:
1471:John Wesley
1325:WP:LISTPURP
1303:WP:LISTPURP
1208:WP:LISTPURP
1142:John Wesley
1117:Atlantic306
237:free images
1664:(Redacted)
1658:(Redacted)
1590:WP:PROVEIT
1557:statistics
1542:everything
1349:WP:EDITING
999:. However
540:Necrothesp
91:Sandstein
1839:talk page
1818:Bookscale
1789:guideline
1582:WP:NOTDIR
1134:Leicester
888:Leicester
874:There is
854:WP:NOTDIR
586:WP:NOTDIR
436:requested
366:off-topic
66:talk page
1855:Category
1841:or in a
1756:WP:LISTN
1622:: About
1586:WP:LISTN
1546:Reywas92
1507:Reywas92
615:WP:LISTN
590:WP:LISTN
196:View log
137:glossary
68:or in a
1691:Doncram
1669:Doncram
1641:Doncram
1620:Comment
1476:Doncram
1274:Doncram
1152:Doncram
1130:Comment
967:Doncram
911:Doncram
818:Doncram
814:wp:CLNT
805:wp:CLNT
801:Comment
766:Doncram
702:Doncram
617:states:
611:Comment
566:postdlf
414:, but:
398:Doncram
382:Doncram
346:Doncram
291:WP:NOTE
243:WP refs
231:scholar
169:protect
164:history
114:New to
1729:WP:GNG
1706:Delete
1576:Djflem
1561:Djflem
1520:Djflem
1389:Djflem
1242:WP:GNG
1084:Djflem
1046:Djflem
938:Delete
934:Rename
839:Djflem
784:Djflem
762:wp:ATD
739:Djflem
727:Rename
725:&
682:Djflem
659:Ajf773
640:Djflem
594:Ajf773
582:Delete
441:Djflem
284:MOS:AT
215:Google
173:delete
79:delete
1799:talk
1739:talk
1372:MarkH
1308:MarkH
1214:MarkH
1189:Merge
995:is a
858:Merge
754:Merge
732:Merge
451:MarkH
439:that
378:more.
273:NOTE:
258:JSTOR
219:books
203:Stats
190:views
182:watch
178:links
16:<
1822:talk
1814:Keep
1771:talk
1763:list
1716:talk
1695:talk
1673:talk
1645:talk
1634:and
1599:talk
1565:talk
1524:talk
1480:talk
1455:this
1393:talk
1278:talk
1231:zero
1204:zero
1170:here
1156:talk
1121:talk
1113:Keep
1088:talk
1050:talk
1028:talk
990:Keep
971:talk
946:talk
915:talk
866:talk
843:talk
822:talk
816:. --
788:talk
770:talk
743:talk
723:Keep
706:talk
686:talk
676:and
663:talk
644:talk
598:talk
588:and
584:per
572:talk
544:talk
490:talk
426:and
402:talk
386:talk
350:talk
299:talk
282:per
251:FENS
225:news
186:logs
160:talk
156:edit
1794:DGG
1750:DGG
1734:DGG
1709:-->
1465:or
1227:two
1201:two
1191:to
876:not
730:or
265:TWL
194:– (
83:why
1857::
1824:)
1801:)
1773:)
1741:)
1718:)
1697:)
1675:)
1667:--
1647:)
1601:)
1584:.
1567:)
1526:)
1482:)
1474:--
1450:,
1447:,
1444:,
1395:)
1375:21
1343:,
1340:,
1337:,
1311:21
1280:)
1217:21
1158:)
1123:)
1090:)
1052:)
1030:)
973:)
948:)
917:)
868:)
845:)
824:)
790:)
772:)
745:)
708:)
688:)
665:)
646:)
600:)
575:)
546:)
538:.
521:.
504:.
492:)
484:.
454:21
404:)
388:)
380:--
352:)
344:--
301:)
245:)
188:|
184:|
180:|
176:|
171:|
167:|
162:|
158:|
43:.
1820:(
1797:(
1769:(
1752::
1748:@
1737:(
1714:(
1693:(
1671:(
1643:(
1597:(
1578::
1574:@
1563:(
1522:(
1478:(
1441:(
1391:(
1327::
1276:(
1225:(
1154:(
1119:(
1086:(
1078:(
1048:(
1026:(
969:(
944:(
913:(
864:(
841:(
820:(
786:(
768:(
741:(
704:(
684:(
661:(
642:(
596:(
569:(
542:(
488:(
430:.
400:(
384:(
348:(
297:(
269:)
261:·
255:·
247:·
240:·
234:·
228:·
222:·
217:(
209:(
206:)
199:·
192:)
154:(
139:)
135:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.