Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Cemetery

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

Non-notable cemetery, fails WP:GNG. The current sourcing consists of the cemetery's website, a website that some guy created about local cemeteries, newjerseycivilwargravestones.org (also doesn't appear reliable), and obituaries for one of the people buried there (not significant coverage of the cemetery). A **WP:BEFORE** search doesn't reveal much else. So the inevitable question does not come up, I oppose a merge since there is very little information about the cemetery or its importance, there is nothing worth merging to another article. Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the notability and sourcing problems are identical:

COMMENT on DOUBLE NOMINATION: The above Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark) was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2018. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Olivet Cemetery, Newark on 13 Februry was KEEP Djflem (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Clearly, these are populated places. bd2412 T 03:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but when I read this I laughed. A cemetery is not a populated place. In order for a place to be populated, the inhabitants must be alive.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the rule that says so. bd2412 T 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rule? Its common sense. When the population of a country, state, city, etc. is stated it only includes living people. A city is a populated place because people live there. The population of the city does not include people who are buried in a cemetery. This is the way population has been counted for hundreds, if not thousands of years.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A place where large numbers of people are buried is as notable as a place where large numbers of people are alive. bd2412 T 04:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, is there are rule that says so? and even so, it still does not make it a populated place.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, these are still sufficiently notable places. They have been around since the 1800s, house notable corpses, and one of them has 500 Civil War graves. bd2412 T 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Mt Olivet was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2018. The result of the discussion was keep, as it should remain. Djflem (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Historic 1844 cemetery Djflem (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:- I think each person, only gets one vote--Rusf10 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are TWO nominations. Make two separate nominations & I'll vote on them on them separately Djflem (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles, don't mean two votes, you could write something like "keep both" but leave it the way it is, I'm sure the closing admin can figure it out. Also, I should point out that just because something is old doesn't mean it is also historic or notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two (2) articles being nominated for deletion and I & anyone else can cast their votes based on the two (2) nominations. Since you're giving unsolicited advice about what I "could" do: you "could" make a separate nomination, "couldn't" you? I also do not need vocabulary lessons, thank you. Djflem (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification The nominator is of the opinion that "two articles, don't mean two votes". They are "sure the closing admin can figure it out". This AfD nomination, which includes the recently "closed as keep" Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark), has the potential for confusion among discussion participants and adds a extra burden to the closing administrator. For those reasons, for sake of transparency, and good faith I have asked nominator on their talk page to split the two. Djflem (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion is not a vote, and if articles get re-nominated without new arguments for their deletion then the nomination is very likely to get rejected. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users, sign a petition to allow me to use emoji's in my signature. 09:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote is the word used by the nominator. Re-nominations should not be bundled and handled separated and not under cover of another nomination. Very likely IMO is not really a consideration in this discussion.Djflem (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:You're the only one having a problem with this, I only grouped together two articles. Multiple article AfDs are allowed see WP:MULTIAFD--Rusf10 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under which critieria as stated in the link you have provided?Djflem (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Substantial historic cemeteries of this sort are notable. See Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey for example. Andrew D. (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That book doesn't even mention either cemetery. There is only a one line entry for a Mount Olivet Cemetery in the book, but that one is in Middletown, NJ Are there actually any sources on these cemeteries?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these articles already has multiple sources in it. bd2412 T 17:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but as I pointed out in the nomination, they are either, they are not reliable independent sources with significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group nomination and that source demonstrates the general notability of historic cemeteries in NJ. There are therefore obvious alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated two articles for deletion, not one of which are in the source you presented. You argument is seriously flawed, you're basically arguing that if even one cemetery in New Jersey is notable, then they must all be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a collection of things is put forward as having a common reason for deletion, a determination that one of these doesn't match this reason should call all of them into question. bd2412 T 02:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one has successfully shown that to be true, but let me withdraw and renominate because I'm sick of arguing about a bunch of procedural bs that has never come up before in any multiafd that I have seen. To be clear, I have never heard of someone argue that because two articles are bundled they must be considered as part of a even larger group of articles which are not even at AFD. So let's withdraw and renominate so Andrew D can now come up with some other garbage "you can't delete" because I just invented a new rule argument. So go right ahead and just keep making up new rules as you go along.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2018 (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.