Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere Cemetery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. While I see that some of this article has been merged elsewhere, this seems to be notable and is sourced. Bduke 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belvidere Cemetery

Belvidere Cemetery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. My reasoning is the same as for the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Church Cemetery, Hardyston: many cemeteries have nothing but a few notable dead as info: the persons are notable, but the cemetery isn't (it's only mentioned in general as the place these persons are buried, not as a topic of interest in itself, unlike e.g. Arlington National Cemetery. I'll nominate them separately, as every cemetery may have different arguments to be kept anyway, but basically in their current state they are all very similar to one another and to the precedent AfD listed above. I'm sorry that we will have to go through all these AfD's, but when people oppose a ProD, there is no choice left. Fram 07:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep All high schools are inherintly notable, and all malls over a certain number of square feet are notable. The discussion should be held at the portal level to determine if all cemeteries should be geographically notable if they contain three or more people with Wikipedia biographies or have burials over 100 years old. Most on the list have fully sourced entries in Sarapin's "Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey". Every National Cemetery has an uncontested Wikipedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As stated on one of the other delete debates; portals have no special authority, your conditions have been rejected at the previous AfD (linked above), and Belvidere has no entry in "Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey"[1]. Fram 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Cemeteries, especially those that contain the deceased of several notable people, are notable. --Oakshade 02:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Notability is NOT inherited by being buried at a place. It should be attained by coverage from significant sources. We're not a directory of who is buried where. Corpx 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. Delete Eusebeus 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge/Redirect to Belvidere, New Jersey (as has already been done). In addition to satisfying the Wikipedia:Cemeteries guidelines, the article provides a complete set of reliable and verifiable sources for all of the notables listed, making it the largest such cemetery in a county of several hundred residents. The nominator's insistence that only cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery is ludicrous on its face. The nominator acknowledges that the material is encylopedic, and seems to be trying to make a disruptive and destructive WP:POINT here (as described on his talk page) by pushing to delete this and other articles, while refusing to consider the suggestion made to merge. Alansohn 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to your other points in one of the other delete debates here, but let me just clarify that contrary to what you claim, no merge/redirect to Belvidere has been done, and there is no guideline for cemeteries, only a styleguide which I hadn't seen before you brought it up here: it's a styleguide wrutten by one person and without any discussion in the year and a half since its creation, and which is linked to by not one discussion or other relevant page before this one. Fram 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As repeatedly suggested, and repeatedly ignored, the information could be merged to a logical parent article. The merge has already been done, and your repeated insistence that it has not been done only further undermines your credibility in this matter. If you have an issue with the styleguide, I encourage you to seek consensus to change it. Until then, all we have is a stubborn refusal to cooperate on your part. Alansohn 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you perhaps finally stop all the personal remarks and discuss the article at hand? I don't care that you don't know the difference between a merge and a duplication of info without a redirect, and I don't really care that you don't know the difference between a guideline and an unused style guide, but I will not tolerate any more baseless accusations from you. Fram 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is encyclopedic, and includes more than adequate reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. It was developed as part of a good faith effort to expand and build Wikipedia. You have decided that you don't like it and have repeatedly refused to consider the possibility of a merge despite repeated suggestions, here, on other AfDs and on your talk page, as I have repeatedly documented. It's a sad state of affairs that an admin still seems to lack the most basic understanding of building consensus, or the knowledge that there are options other than delete for articles that you just don't like. Alansohn 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems there is a guideline--which I did not know before -- and that it meets it. personally, I think hat 3 notable burials is a very low bar, and I'd support changing the guideline. But by our current standards, it is notable. DGG (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, there is no guideline, only a styleguide. Please don't continue the mistakes of other people... Fram 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Arlington National Cemetery is notable because of who's buried there. In this case this appears to be an ANTI-US bias because we have articles on puny cemeteries in other countries with a few famous people who because they've been around for 300 years are notable enough. Quit the deletions until an actual guideline is proposed and accepted, so then we can nuke all of the cemeteries worldwide that dont fit the official guidelines. To do this any other way is inherently biased.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm supposed to remain civil here, but you are making it very hard. First, I have no anti-US bias, and I see no reason for you to think so. I have never created, edited, nominated, deleted or kept articles out of any bias, and I would prefer that you don't make such baseless accusations anymore. Secondly, there is a guideline, it's called WP:NOTE. And finally, have you actually looked at the "puny cemeteries" you have linked? It looks to me that you have a pro-US bias if you call another nation's national monument, a musem or a holy tomb (a pilgrim's site and architectural marvel) "puny". Anyway, we shouldn't be discussing the merits of other articles, but solely of this one. I have not recognised one argument in your "keep" which is about this cemetery, so why should anyone take it into account? Fram 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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.