Talk:List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester

Article vs. list

This article appears to be simply a list, perhaps it should be renamed as such? --Ifnord (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

steps after AFD

I had opened AFD towards rationalizing lists of churches in England. The list-article here included non-notable items and appeared to violate wp:DIRECTORY to me. Also IMO it is "too small" of an area to have a separate list-article about RC churches; it does not need to be split out of the "England" section of List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom. A redirect to that section is List of Roman Catholic churches in England (which might eventually get split out to be a separate list-article). IMO having this mini-list separate and/or duplicative hurts rather than helps readers.

The AFD was closed "Keep" but that does not preclude editing, and it does not preclude mergers or other reorganizing. Now, after the AFD, I propose two steps:

1. Delete non-notable items (just now done by me: I deleted all the items not having a separate Wikipedia article (of which none had any inline citation or any other information besides the name of the church). This leaves just three items.
2. Merge/redirect away. Probably to List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom#Leicestershire, a section within the England list which includes the three items from Leicester plus two more outside the city.

I won't implement a merger/redirect immediately, will wait for discussion here, or perhaps will open a formal wp:Merger process. --Doncram (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support, the measures outlined above. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the work to be done is to add sources, not delete items to create a 'mini list', to justify and promote an agenda.Djflem (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Accusing Doncram of offering a proposal to justify and promote an agenda is an unsubstantiated accusation that is a personal attack and battleground behavior. Stop. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support both steps Merge (along with the relevant parts of Anglican churches in Leicester, Draft:List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Leicester#Religion, and Places of worship in Leicester) to a combined List of churches in Leicester article (although it also makes sense to just have a section in Places of worship in Leicester). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both - AfD was closed as keep, not as no consensus. I have also reverted Doncram's edit per WP:BRD - no consensus has been established that these items are non-notable or that they need to go. I believe the AfD !votes and outcome show that we need to discuss these items further if they're going to be removed. It would also be preferential to have said items present while we discuss them.

I would support MarkH21's plan to form a List of churches in Leicester or a List of Christian churches in Leicester, and strongly oppose any mergers into a section of Leicester or a country-wide list, or taking this a stepping stone thereto. My reasons have been laid out at the AfD. Daß Wölf 18:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a related discussion at Talk:Anglican churches in Leicester#post-AFD changes. For courtesy I'm also pinging AfD participants who haven't commented here yet: Andrew Davidson, Reywas92, Epiphyllumlover, Devonian Wombat, PPEMES, Cbl62, Coolabahapple. Daß Wölf 18:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I didn't expect "voting" to go on here. Process-wise, about removal of specific items, I don't think a consensus about non-notability is needed before material can be challenged and removed, especially not for unsourced material. The onus is upon person adding (back) material to support that it is valid. Let's discuss specific material in next section that i am opening, and keep this section going for general comments/"votes" about general process, I suppose? --Doncram (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Support both. For the millionth damn time, there are millions of churches, businesses, restaurants, cemeteries, schools, bridges, mosques, temples, wineries, whatever out there, and we are not a DIRECTORY of them all. If they're not demonstrated to be notable, they should only be provided with clear context and content, rather than "it exists, it must be on Wikipedia". Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both. A more logical reorganization would be to create an article on the Diocese of Nottingham, the largest Catholic diocese in England and the one to which Leicester belongs. That article could then appropriately includes lists of the diocese's constituent churches, schools, priories, etc. Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • THANK YOU! I think your view supports merger/removal of this list-article, actually, but I highly appreciate that you are introducing an element of RC-specific organization here. I happen to agree that an article about a RC diocese can/should include listing its constuent schools and parish churches, and should be like a school district article in the U.S. (obviously notable as governmental/taxing/fundraising entities, suitable target for redirects about primary schools). Based on some source I have believed that Leicestershire is the diocese; maybe i am wrong; we agree anyhow that Leicester is not a valid district for RC church organization. --Doncram (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Leicester is one of the deaneries within the Nottingham Diocese. I would not oppose renaming this as List of Roman Catholic churches in the Leicester Deanery. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do not support the changes you have made to the article since AfD (and without consultation on talk). It is written like a directory and is exactly what the article should NOT look like. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The bigger way forward, IMHO, is for editors who are serious actually interested and/or knowledgeable and/or have sourcing about the topic area to proceed with developing sourced material to add to List of Roman Catholic churches in England. I sort of want to challenge anyone/everyone/Daß Wölf in particular about this: I don't believe you are serious. AFAICT, no one has any sourcing or interest or anything! And I don't "get" your interest in disputing anything here; IMHO it is not helpful for you to "defend" the too-narrow topic of this list-article and the totally bogus material that has been here. And honestly I don't think you should devote yourselves to developing in this obscure area; there are much more important things to do in Wikipedia. Anyhow, no one is blocked from proceeding to develop material. If you do develop material, I personally suggest focusing effort in developing positively in the England/U.K. RC list-article, rather than in this list-article, because the scope of this list-article is definitely in dispute and it will probably be merged away. If/when there is ever "too much" material about Leicester there, then a split-out of Leicester could be contemplated, but that would be weird considering that the RC church organization has Leicestershire as a diocese; Leicester is not a district recognized by the RC church.

About developing a new "List of churches in Leicester" list-article, that a) is bogus because "Places of worship" would be better, to include mosques, synagogues, etc., and b) creating such a list-article by copying in directory information (the content of this and other 4 AFDd articles) will certainly be disputed, and c) scope of such a list-article will certainly be disputed (including that we don't need/want a list of the 44 businesses based in Leicester, nor a list of churches, nor any other such directory), and d) a better way forward is available (develop about Roman Catholic churches in the unquestionably valid list of RC churches in the UK, instead). --Doncram (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

To further this line of discussion: are we serious/am I serious - let me ask you why are you so serious about this? You will remove the material, the article will be merged, split will be contemplated, compromise proposal is bogus. In the section below you're inviting us to establish a precedent for list item notability on a (per your expectations) soon-to-be-redirected talk page? You're telling us/me not to edit an article that was kept (not even NC'd) at AfD. Rather strange to call me out for attitude. Daß Wölf 19:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am serious in terms of being part of a bigger solution, not being just a thorn. I am developing stuff in this area: I have been expanding and reorganizing (by RC diocese) the List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom. I have been contributing to this current article, too, though yes I do have "attitude" that I think any substantial content should soon or eventually be moved elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, thanks to Daß Wölf for pinging me about this, my question asking whether Leicester is especially known as the/a "city of churches" wasn't addressed, i was curious that at the Lists of churches in England category, apart from London, for every other city/town/place either there is a list of churches or places of worship article, if i was a wikireader from england, and interested in churches i would wonder why ie. "what makes Leicester special? why doesn't ... (where i live) also have separate lists?", hence my suggestion that Places of worship in Leicester expanded would be adequate (in line with everywhere else), i see that article was recently renamed and is now up for deletion, i have suggested "Keep and revert" as i don't believe the rename was adequately discussed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: hijacking in progress: Recent editing has been modifying this article to be a different thing, to be about the RC "deanery" of Leicester and its parishes, covering its current parish churches. Which is a different (bigger) area than Leicester, but smaller I think than Leicestershire. With statement by the editor that they intend for this to be moved/renamed to be explicitly about the deanery. I don't necessarily mind, because it amounts to someone developing an expansion to Roman Catholic Diocese of Nottingham article and then splitting it out, which may be legitimate, if I look at that diocese article as if it is a U.S. school district article, where it is okay to list its constituent elements IMHO. But this is a different animal: it is focused upon the current "deanery" which was established perhaps only recently. It is not clear if historic RC church buildings that still exist in Leicester, but are not now, and perhaps never were, part of the "deanery" are to be included. It is not clear if the Polish catholic church in Leicester (which is maybe part of a diocese of Poland?) is to be covered naturally there. It does not jive with the other "List of DENOMINATION churches in Leicester" articles or the combo "List of churches in Leicester" or "Places of worship in Leicester" article that some have wanted.

Hijacking this way may be a way out overall; the current "List of RC churches in Leicester" topic is kaput; the few notable ones (having articles) are being added to the "List of RC churches in the UK" (which only covers ones having articles); I suppose anyone is free to add RC churches to Leicester#Religion; whether "Places of worship in Leicester" should be kept/developed or not might be considered a separate question. And the "closed churches" which have been deleted in editing, but might have originally come from University of Leicester Archaeology and Ancient History Interactive Geo map of sites (a directory, albeit an academic-like one) are just dropped, which is arguably appropriate (nothing substantial is known about them to say anywhere; if/when any editor finds substantial sourcing about one they can create an article about it, and it should then also be mentioned in "List of RC churches in the UK", and maybe or maybe not should be mentioned in the deanery article. Just noting this is different than what any other editors participating in the AFD and here have been arguing for. --Doncram (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: I'm quite surprised (and somewhat chagrined) at the colorful language above. There is no "hijacking" going on. To the contrary, I am simply trying to improve an article with additional sources material and content after you filed an AfD which resulted in a "keep" result. The article has always dealt with the churches in the Leicester area. If you look at its contents a month ago, about half (maybe more?) of the churches included were located outside the city limits but within the Leicester metro area -- an area that, for church organization purposes, is classified as the Leicester Deanery. Nothing has changed in that regard. I am simply trying to bring greater clarity to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, yes, that term is colorful and maybe too strong; I was just trying to catch the attention of, and be clear to others who have been quite passionate in the multiple related AFDs, to avoid any appearance of sneaking something by (i.e. beware of the several pretty starkly put points made above). I really don't want to cause offense to you and I pretty much do want to support this overall resolution of a thorny problem. Which I think is basically being made possible by your good faith -- even extraordinary -- efforts, for you to be showing up and taking on English church lists or at least RC development here. I am sure you've crossed the pond before in other areas, but this is somewhat surprising still. About any churches being outside the city limits I was not aware of that, and that does change matters; your point that this was pretty much about the deanery/greater area all along is then supported and I was wrong (though I do think most or nearly all participants have thought this was strictly about Leicester city). You must have seen that I have several times been complaining that the city area did not correspond to a district meaningful in the RC church, and otherwise complaining, so I have asserted this list article would have to eventually be "merged" to somewhere else. One could look at this as me "losing" a campaign to get rid of this article, and perhaps others "winning", which maybe some would be happy about. Nonetheless I am basically wanting to go along with this now, and to defer to you about how you want to develop the diocese article. This is unexpected/different than how any of the other denomination's stuff has been marching along. I do hope you can i understand how I am cooperating, in related articles, too. --Doncram (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, I've seen your name in various article histories and I've never doubted your good faith here, but I think your language has come off a little forcefully. I don't want to pontificate too much; I'll admit that I likely would've gotten involved less in this topic if that didn't happen, and maybe I could've been less confrontational in my reply to you. I'm glad that we appear to have settled on a consensus on whether the content in this article should be kept :)

Regarding the Polish Catholic Church: at first I thought that this was only a RC church with services in Polish language, but a reading of Polish Catholicism shows there are a number of non-RC organisations that call themselves "Polish Catholic". Unfortunately I can't tell much from their website, other than their parish being named after St Paul, which I'm pretty sure is not the one on the diocese website. Interestingly, Polish WP appears to have an article about this church: pl:Polski kościół św. Pawła w Leicesterze, as well as a category which includes a few Leicester churches without pages on en.WP: 1 2 3. Some of these pages have sources not mentioned here, though I'm not sure which of their sources are reliable and can't understand much of the text. Daß Wölf 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

standard for list-item notability / removal of contested material

Okay, my edit removing the completely unsourced materials (just names of churches and rough locations, such as "Most Blessed Sacrament, Gooding Avenue, Braunstone", with no source, no assertion of any level of notability at all) was reverted by Daß Wölf, I think towards further discussion here about what standard we want to have for "list-item notability" here, which can be lower than Wikipedia's standard for article notability. However, it is easiest and very common / most common for list-articles to use standard of Wikipedia article-notability; I suggest we do that here, so only the three bluelink items should be kept here in Step 1 (and are to be merged away in Step 2). I think it is reasonable to say that, in the absence of a consensus for a specific lower standard, that Wikipedia-notability (to be proven by whether a separate article exists or not) is the default.

Discussion is fine, but the material is contested by me, on the grounds that there is no evidence provided that any of these names are even Catholic churches, and there is no assertion of any degree of importance at all, much less any source supporting that. Any lower standard would need to be expressed, and would have to involve some assertion of importance and sourcing supporting that. I'll pause for comments, but expect to proceed by removing the material again. The material would still be available in the edit history, but could also be copied to this Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, it would be inappropriate to remove unless consensus supports you. Further, there is no requirement that each entry on a list satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's unreferenced, it's inappropriate to add back the removed content. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source per WP:CHALLENGE (a policy, whereas BRD isn't even a guideline). — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It is now sourced. BRD applies. Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Most of the removed entries still have no links attached at all, and the others are links to websites (half of which are Facebook and not RS). — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've counted 2 Facebook links out of 10. Additionally, WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Daß Wölf 19:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

All removed entries (for active churches) now have sources. The issue for list entries is verifiability, not notability. The former is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: I think the link count has changed in the short time since my comment haha (I concede that it's a slight stretch to call 2/7 almost half). @Cbl62: I agree, I was just making the point that CHALLENGE applied instead of BRD at the time of the first revert, so it shouldn't have been made. Good job finding the extra links though. The closed churches are still unreferenced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to expect local sources to be free and online. As a compromise to those who want to remove under-sourced churches, I propose that under-sourced churches should be listed in a collapsed collapsible table until such sources can be located by people local to the area.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I like your trying to find a compromise, but no, mainspace should not be burdened with collapsed boxes of non-content. The unsourced names remain in edit history versions. And it is okay to copy removed stuff to this Talk page or to a Talk subpage (how about Talk:List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester/Removed stuff). It just doesn't make sense to have a fake list-article in existence because it might one day not be fake. Nor does it make sense to have fake entries in place just because one day they might be more legitimate. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What about the new version of this article? Sure, it has changed somewhat, or considerably, now with links given to current church webpages on Facebook or otherwise, and a table format. I myself developed out a bit about the one "closed church" (after other unsourced ones were removed by another editor), and I found out it wasn't merely "closed", it was demolished more than 500 years ago and little is known about it. It seemed silly to have a one-item table of "closed churches" with a column for locations, when the location is unknown of the one item, so I converted that coverage to just prose. And I added summaries based on their articles, for the three notable ones (the ones that have articles). There is no evidence of importance/notability for the rest, which look bad, IMHO. I appreciate that Cbl62 and others tried to develop here. Cbl62 stated The issue for list entries is verifiability, not notability but that is simply not so. There is not a requirement that Wikipedia must list out and promote Roman Catholic churches in Leicester, in a little group serving as a little commercial directory, like what LocalPrayers.Com directory service provides, just because each has a webpage verifying its existence. Just like (thankfully) there is not a requirement that Wikipedia must promote all businesses in Leicester that can be verified by their having a webpage. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The comparison is inapt between a Roman Catholic parish and routine commercial enterprises such as tobacco shops, laundromats, or diners. The parish church is a fundamental organizing structure for the Roman Catholic Church and, for its 1.3 billion adherents, a central element of life. Nobody is saying every small parish church is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, but list articles identifying such parish churches, and organized appropriately by diocese (or deanery in the case of large dioceses) is entirely appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

some factual matters

Here not trying to continue the big discussion about what to do, overall, just noting and asking questions about facts.

• The passage about church demolished by 1450 mentions "the siege of 1173", as if we should know what that is. I wrote that, drawing from source there. What siege is that, though? Category:Conflicts in 1173 does not have it. Leicester#History does not mention it.
• Note this article has been edited towards being about the Leicester deanery and its parishes, rather than being about the RC churches in Leicester. I personally am not sure if the current editing thrust means to have it cover all the church buildings in Leicester or not, now, but whatever.
• Note the city of Leicester is not the same as the Leicester deanery; e.g. the latter includes one in Narborough which is in Leicestershire, sure, but not in Leicester.
• Now the article states there are 15 current parishes in the deanery and has 15 rows. But is the Holy Cross Priory actually a parish church? That's not how its "history" page describes it, i think; i think a priory is different.
• Now the article starts off with a prose list of 20 communities, which I think may be the same list of 20 places named in Nottingham Diocese's parishes subpage's Leicester deanery section, which I think means 20 parishes and 20 parish churches. If this is now a list of parishes in the deanery, are 5 current parish churches missing?

These questions apply to the current version of this article, might be mooted by further editing. --Doncram (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Nottingham is divided into 12 deaneries. See [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Nottingham#Churches. A deanery is the typical organizational subunit with a diocese. The Deanery of Leicester covers the Leicester metropolitan area. The article effectively covered the deanery region already and was not limited to the city limits. At some point, a move to List of Roman Catholic churches in the Leicester Deanery would avoid confusion and provide greater clarity. Cbl62 (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Point of fact: The article has always been very clearly about churches in Leicester, exactly limited to the city, like the other "List of DENOMINATION churches in Leicester" articles. Which I think were all built from the online directory (academic-like, sort of, but nonetheless a directory) University of Leicester Archaeology and Ancient History Interactive Geo map of sites. The directory is exactly limited to city limits. Cbl62, not involved in the other AFDs where that directory has been discussed, is understandably unaware about this, I suppose, though it is listed as an "external source" in this article (unless it has just been deleted). As I say in big topic discussion above, about "hijacking", I don't necessarily mind, but the fact is this has been about the city limits. --Doncram (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Point of fact: The article has always covered churches located outside the city limits of Leicester but within the suburban towns and areas comprising the metropolitan area. Nothing has changed in this regards. What are you referring to as "hijacking"? Cbl62 (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually I suppose I am wrong, as Cbl62 is saying here and above that the list really did include churches outside the city, and with your being so specific I believe you. I assumed incorrectly that you were out of sync with the previous discussions and that you would have been simply not attending to the city limits understanding that I thought applied. --Doncram (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A few days later: Actually actually I've been troubled about this. Not to belie the cooperation that's happened (basically towards this being transformed to be a list-article about the deanery area, which I think we're all going along with), I am looking right now about the locations of the churches in the article before it was AFD'd. In fact, they all appear to be strictly within the limits of the city of Leicester. This matters with respect to what happens to the other "List of DENOMINATION churches in Leicester" articles' content, including possibility of merging them into one "Places of worship in Leicester" list-article; if this RC one sprawls in and out then the others may too, and merging is less feasible. And the accuracy of the pre-AFD list here matters if that list were to be included into a "Places of worship in Leicester" list. Anyhow, this RC list showed one in Braunstone, which is ambiguous, but that church in fact is in the city's Braunstone neighborhood, it is in the city, not in the Braunstone Town outside. Eyres Monsell and the St. John Bosco church are in the city (or at least the St. John Bosco Parish Hall is, which I found when I was looking for the church in Google maps; the church is probably demolished). The "Armadale Drive, Netherall" one is in fact near the intersection of Armadale Dr. and Netherall Rd. and the Netherall Road Post Office, but those are all in Leicester. No other ones in the list are identified with a community/neighborhood/town name at all, so it appears all are in Leicester proper. And I recognize many those others as being in Leicester. I make these judgments from comparing the churches' actual locations in Google maps, to the bounds of Leicester as can be seen by searching in Google maps for "Leicester, UK". That shows an outline of the city borders, which disappears if/when you navigate around. Now I am figuring Cbl62 has had a different understanding of the bounds of Leicester, or at least did not have a convenient way to check these things. And it is not a big deal, and it does not seem to me to matter with respect to what happens with this list-article now. User:Cbl62, could you comment to clarify, though? And I am sorry if this appears persnickety or petty or whatever on my part. It does matter with respect to the other articles, which are still under discussion at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious denominations in Leicester and elsewhere, and some persons commenting in that AFD and elsewhere are partly informed by their participation and/or watching here. --Doncram (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC) P.S. In particular this came up for me just now, because I was going to return to Talk:Anglican churches in Leicester#post-AFD changes and update there about what has happened here, and I realized i need to characterize this properly. I had proceeded there, as here, to remove non-notables, then discussion started. But the discussion there was paused, waiting for results here. --Doncram (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• About "Our Lady of Good Counsel" / Gleneagles Avenue, Rushey Mead / "A modernist church in shape and structure set in a suburban housing estate; built in 1975 based on design by Reynolds and Scott", the source is interesting and further notes the architects are "F.M. Reynolds" and "William Alphonsus Scott". Are these architects possibly notable? There is a Wikipedia article about a different William Alphonsus Scott (1871–1921), who "was a well-known Irish Roman Catholic ecclesiastical architectural historian, academic, and architect". Surely the 1975 architect is a grandson or otherwise related; maybe they could be mentioned in the grandfather's page, and linked to from here? --Doncram (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd welcome addition of other factual questions into this section, and would welcome comments/replies interspersed or added any other way an editor might prefer. --Doncram (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to only say based on their designs, so it's likely the same William Alphonsus Scott. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. see this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Article improvement points raised by Doncram

I received your notes on my talk page and respond here as the points relate to this article:

1. If you wish to initiate a proposal to rename the article as List of Roman Catholic churches in the Leicester Deanery, I would support that proposal. Such a proposal would fit neatly with the overall structure at Roman Catholic Diocese of Nottingham#Churches. At the right time, when more fully developed, some of the other deanery sublists could be broken out into stand-alone lists as well.
2. As for the combined parish of St. Mary's and St. John Bosco, I opted for a single line entry to follow the decision of the diocese to combine the two churches as a single parish. This is also consistent with the notion that the term "church" can refer to either a physical building or a group or congregation organized to share their religious faith. I do not feel strongly on the one- or two-line item point if there is consensus that the two buildings should be dealt with in separate line entries.
3. I am fine with the Polish church (which may or may not fall within the governance of the Nottingham Diocese) being addressed either in the chart or in prose. I agree with you that it should not be excluded from the article.
4. I think you are misreading the diocese page. I do not read it as implying that there are 20 parishes; rather, I read it as simply listing the communities that are served by the deanery.
5. Whether or not it is a "parish church", the Holy Cross Priory IMO should be retained in the chart.

As an overarching point, it is important to bear in mind that the AfD resulted in an affirmative consensus to "keep". Accordingly, efforts to delete most of the churches on notability grounds or to redirect the list in its entirety should be avoided. Best wishes on this Easter Sunday. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed User:Daß Wölf's point above. If the Polish church is not "Roman Catholic", but is instead part of some distinct "Polish Catholic" church, then it should probably be omitted here. Perhaps someone in the region could dig into this. Cbl62 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, thank you for adding the geocoordinates. This is a very helpful feature. Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Just about interpreting the diocese page: it seems we were both wrong. If there is a parish church, then there is a parish, right? It seems that there exist multiple parish churches in Leicester proper, and at least one in each of the communities named by the diocese (of which a few are in Leicester proper). It seems like there are more than 20 (the number i inferred). It seems like the Diocese does not bother to list them anywhere! From browsing to find their locations in google maps, I see that many of these parish churches are small and some are sort of hidden, tucked in behind houses or little commercial strips. Some don't have signs at all, AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the diocese pages about individual parishes are hard to find. There's no index AFAICT, and while "Previous" and "Next" navigation arrows would suggest you could march through them alphabetically, it seems they work only sometimes, or for only a few jumps, and then you are stuck at a dead end.

about the Polish church

About the Polish church, User:Daß Wölf's info and comment is helpful. Interestingly the Polish wikipedia page's sources are just the main webpage of the church (i think, thought its url is bad) and its "Parish history" subpage which I had found. The reason i/we/whoever noted we were not listing it in the table is that we thought the Diocese did not list it (I called for a source on that point), but now it is clear the Diocese simply does not list its parishes or it is hard to find, so it is like others. And the history of the church is that it was formed with assistance/coordination of the Dominicans, who allowed it to have service times within the priory, and it emerged organically from the Polish military-related population of the area. I thought it was plausible it could have been connected to a Polish diocese, but was not founded there as a mission or otherwise by any Polish diocese, and there is no evidence it has any association with any Polish diocese; it simply is part of this diocese. (In some targeted searching on 'Polish church "Diocese of Nottingham"' I find my way to the Diocese's page about a priest, Rev. Fr. Pawel Urbanek, of Polish Church, 9 Gordon Road, DERBY; Derby is not far; I am not sure if this Polish church is same or different.) So i think this church goes in now. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, but what if it is really of the Polish Orthodox Church faith, not Catholic? Hmm, there is Polish-Catholic Church in United Kingdom, not exactly Catholic? So were the Dominicans just being nice, while this is not strictly RC. (Derby is a center of Poles, e.g. 2010 coverage about Polish community there, when the plane crashed (Smolensk air disaster).) --Doncram (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to say, I would say Dominicans' involvement probably excludes Orthodox, but not e.g. Greek Catholics, which recognise the Pope and are part of Vatican's hierarchy like Roman Catholics, except they follow Orthodox rites. It might also not exclude some Old Catholic movements which only split off after the 1940s (cf. sedevacantism, SSPX -- though one of the churches is SSPX and still belongs to the RC diocese!). It's an intriguing topic and unfortunately I've come to know very little about it as we don't really have an Old Catholic presence in my country. Might be worth asking someone at WP:WikiProject Poland. Daß Wölf 22:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Listed buildings of the deanery and diocese, and Leicester local register

There is a source "Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Nottingham: An Architectural and Historical Review, Architectural History Practice Limited, April 2011" cited in the Mount St Bernard Abbey article. The source would be useful to get somehow, and the abbey is apparently part of this diocese, but, oh, not necessarily this deanery. The Rothley Temple (just added by me to this article) and the abbey were the only other items in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Leicestershire which weren't in this article. There is a current parish church in Rothley which is in the deanery, so the Rothley Temple is too. --Doncram (talk)

There are a number of documents available at this Administration page of the diocese, including financial reports and historic buildings reports. The financial report includes a good description of bounds of the diocese including about counties, including where it matched some county lines which have since been changed, but the diocese didn't change. This should be used in the diocese article.

The 2017 report of the Historic Churches Committee, with minutes] reports that there are 37 listed buildings (and grade I, II, II* category counts) in the diocese, and 18 considered worth of listing. The 2017 report discusses initiatives on specific buildings in Hassop, Nottingham, Loughborough (which is in Leicestershire), Hadfield (probably meaning Hadfield, Derbyshire), Marple Bridge, Woodthorpe (maybe meaning Woodthorpe, Leicestershire which is near Loughborough), Grimsby, numerous other places which I do not recognize as being in the Leicester deanery area, tho i am not sure. (What about St. Mary's, Derby, in Derby? I guess not.). Same for 2016, 2015 reports and their minutes, but maybe someone more familiar with the geography would find some? The 2014 report includes:

St Joseph, Goodwood Road, Leicester – possible listing: Further to English Heritage’s correspondence in December 2012, the Diocese wrote to English Heritage requesting an update. A reply has been received. English Heritage has put spot listings on hold recently owing to staff shortages and project priorities. It hopes to advise of a decision on whether to list St Josephs by May / June 2014.

and

St Joseph, Goodwood Road, Leicester – possible listing As advised at the last meeting, further to English Heritage’s correspondence in December 2012, the Diocese wrote to English Heritage requesting an update. They replied that they had put spot listings on hold recently owing to staff shortages and project priorities and hoped to advise of a decision on whether to list St Josephs by May / June 2014. To date no

decision has been received.

and

St Joseph, Goodwood Road, Leicester – possible listing

To date no decision has been received from English Heritage. This has been ongoing since

December 2012.

And:

Leicester City Council – Proposed inclusion on Local Heritage Asset Register
The Council has written to the Diocesan Administrator advising the following properties
are to be included on Leicester City Council’s new Local Heritage Asset Register. (Some
of these properties were already identified by the Council as being of local interest).
- St Peters Church, Hinckley Road, Leicester
- St Patricks Church, Beaumont Leys Lane, Leicester
- Our Lady of Good Counsel, Gleneagles Avenue, Leicester
- St Josephs Church, Uppingham Road, Leicester
- Mother of God, New Parks Boulevard, Leicester
- St Thomas More, Knighton Road, Leicester

I see the Our Lady of Good Counsel and Mother of God ones are already in this article, and maybe the others are. Need to search/find out about that register, does it have any documentation that could be helpful. --Doncram (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Local register docs are at https://www.leicester.gov.uk/planning-and-building/conservation/heritage-conservation/local-heritage-asset-register. The [1] has a helpful ward map of the city. It includes photos and text about all listed items, including:

• about local listing for St. Patrick's, Beaumont Leys Lane, in this article, the one designed by Reynolds and Scott. p.19.
• Vicarage of a St. Paul's (RC or not?)
• Churches not labelled RC or not: a St. Luke's, a St. Aidan's, and, separately, associated buildings of both them.
• Church of St Thomas More on p. 121.
• Has Sikh gurdwara and Primitive Methodist and other items suitable for a "Places of worship in Leicester" article.
• Church of Our Lady of Good Counsel, p 143.
• St Peter's Church Hinckley Road p. 167.
• Christ the King Catholic Primary School, Glenfield Road: "A good example of a mid-20th century Roman Catholic former infants & junior school. The school was built circa 1951 to the designs of the Leicester architects Harding & Ferguson Cooper on the site of the former family home of the Gimson family, a mid-19th century dwellinghouse originally known as Ashleigh House. The ground floor of the house still remains and is incorporated into the complex of school buildings. The school has a strong visual presence within the streetscene and was builtusing standardised prefabricated components, which was recommended at the time by the Ministry of Education in order to reduce construction costs." p. 180. Should a Leicester deanery page cover Catholic schools?
• Church of the Mother of God, p. 187.
• Note 5 of the 6 mentioned in 2014 as being of interest to the council, were in fact listed. There seems to be no mention of a St. Josephs Church, Uppingham Rd., though.
• summary list p 219-234

--Doncram (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)