Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Cemetery

Crocker Cemetery

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable cemetery, fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:NGEO. All the sources here are primary source documents or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. (The Sarasota History Alive item is a transcription of a local historical marker that focuses more on the associated church.) The church is arguably notable (and there's a draft at Draft:Crocker Church); any reliably sourced encyclopedic content about the cemetery could be merged there. I would have draftified this page but there's already a draft at Draft:Crocker Cemetery so that's not an option and AfD is the outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify: In the same spirit as the nominator, I believe this may be better returned to Draft. It may be susceptible to enhancement there to show and prove notability 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete No sourcing found by anyone which meets our needs. That sourcing in the article is insufficient. Fails WP:GNG. Might find a home merged into an eventual article in Crocker Church, or could be merged into the current Draft:Crocker Church. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Either this page needs to be deleted or the draft where it would get sent needs to be deleted. Different mechanically but the same general outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify by merging the existing article into the existing draft. @Htystudent believed that the article had been submitted through AfC for review which is probably the best thing for it and them as a new editor. I see the potential, I found an article about volunteer efforts for the cemetery in the Sarasota Daily Tribune, and I think the differing names have made it harder but certainly not impossible to find sources. Draftify to an eventual keep, hopefully. Kazamzam (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - both the claims of the article and the topic's overall notability, plus (allegedly) notable facts of the article cannot be verified and are under AfD proceedings. Might be merged into an eventual article on Crocker Church, per Timtrent's suggestion above, but the trifecta of articles by the original author are all insufficiently sourced with reliably citations at present. Kazamzam (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kazamzam @Htystudent The article on the church is very likely notable with a focus on the reliable sources. The cemetery is more loosely sourced and I doubt will pass through AFC, but any encyclopedic content here should be included in the church article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The cemetery and church have both received notable attention. There have been many articles written about them. If you visit Newsbank or NewspaperArchive you'd see them. However, it does require a subscription. I have cited these articles as sources. I don't really see how that can count against the article if you choose not to purchase the subscription to review them. Although, most public libraries offer these services for free on their public computers. Htystudent (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am unsure of how this article is up for deletion too as I quite literally submitted it for review and it was published, so it’s likely an issue with the reviewer and not me. I don’t understand how this cemetery is “non notable”. It is a historically designated location. It has to go through a strict process to even be historically designated. Htystudent (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Htystudent Please look at the history tab. This has never been through the AFC process. It appears to have been created by you, moved to Draft by another editor and then the (presumed) redirect overwritten by you later. See the logs
 * Draft:Crocker Cemetery exists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can only find confirmation of burials there, which is what a cemetery does. Nothing notable about this place, I don't see that it's been listed on the NRHP or local historical register. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have done poor research and have not even bothered to look at the sources. If you couldn't find it why do you think an average person would be able to? That's why this page needs to exist.
 * St. John's/Crocker Memorial Cemetery | Sarasota History Alive!
 * This is linked directly in the article as a citation. I suggest you obtain better reading comprehension skills. Htystudent (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (the link contains an image, that I do not own, of the historical marker.) You could have even looked up the county's historic register page Sarasota County Historical Markers (arcgis.com) and found it. It's listed under Peter Crocker (since he founded the cemetery) but discusses the cemetery as well. Htystudent (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Htystudent, please be WP:CIVIL. The Sarasota History Alive page lists the text of a historical marker. Under WP:NPLACE, a "buildings . . . may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I think it's fair to say that the ~500 words of a historical marker erected by a local historical society cannot be presumed to constitute "significant in-depth coverage," and that's why we're having this discussion. (Places listed on the National Register are presumed notable; places documented by local historical groups are not and thus editors need to prove their notability using significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources.) @Oaktree b participates in a lot of these debates; I don't agree with his assessment 100% of the time, but he knows how to evaluate sources. Telling him "you have not even bothered to look at the sources" or to "obtain better reading comprehension skills" is not an appropriate way to engage here. @Timtrent is trying to help your work pass muster. I've offered my thoughts above about combining the cemetery content with the church. Your approach today is not a good way to engage with the broader community of volunteers who are working on this encyclopedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When they say " I don't see that it's been listed on the NRHP or local historical register." It is clear that they have not viewed the sources, as the Sarasota History Alive page is the first source listed in the article. Not sure how you can, in good faith, opt for deletion without viewing the sources when the deletion discussion is about the sources. The Sarasota History Alive page is also not just a text. It has a photo, as I mentioned, of the physical historical marker. Htystudent (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, being listed on a local register has no bearing on notability; you need to have WP:SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources and that's what's still missing from this conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN ST. JOHN'S MEMORIAL CEMETERY IS A LITTLE-KNOWN BURIAL GROUND THAT, Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL), October 4, 1998, p1D (newsbank.com)
 * 1560-word article solely about the cemetery (yes, it's the same cemetery. The name was changed to St. John's Cemetery, but it's still referred to as Crocker Cemtery), will be put in as a citation momentarily.
 * There were also various articles published in the pelican press, now the siesta key observer, but there is no way to view those since they are not in the county library's archive. Not sure if you would consider those since you cannot view them. Htystudent (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And the NRHP will usually have a 20 page history of the building, which really helps notability. This is a long way form that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you looked at the page I linked, you'd see that it is not NRHP. It is locally registered, which is still notable since the processes are very similar. Htystudent (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to enlighten you to the fact that the Sarasota Historical Society does not have any authority to erect historical markers. Historic Designation can only be granted by the city, county, or federal level (which is a strict process). The Sarasota Historical Society is simply a volunteer organization. Htystudent (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the sources all appear to be paper-based (in the article at present), so I can't look at them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it a part of the notability guidelines that paper sources are not allowed to be used? Htystudent (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, they are not all paper based. Like I said, the first source is literally a link. Htystudent (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Htystudent - what @Oaktree b is correctly pointing out is that paper-based sources cannot be verified by other editors which largely defeats the purpose of a source - that it can be used to verify the material it claims to source. If I say I have a paper copy of the Bible that states that Jesus was 7 feet tall and an amazing point guard, but there's no other record of it, it's hardly usable as a source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Many archives have digital material to compliment the paper source and this can be linked to or at least requested to be shared by online readers. Do you see the difference here?
 * Also, I'm not sure about the wisdom of pointing out (sorry, "enlightening" us) that the Sarasota Historical Society is a volunteer organization with no authority to erect historical markers or give a historic designation. That makes the third-party notability claim more dubious imho. Kazamzam (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was to bolster the verity of the historical marker, which they were trying to say had no significance. Htystudent (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which they obviously did not know historical markers, at least in Sarasota County, can only be erected by a government organization after they have gone through the strict historic designation process. Htystudent (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how people who do not know much about the subject have final say, especially when I possess a master's level of education (Which is why I'm unsure why I just can't be taken at my word- at my sources really- for the print articles). Maybe my education is too formal, and I apologize for that, but it makes zero sense to me how the only qualification to become an editor on wikipedia is length of time. There is some knowledge of local government and history required to determine the verity and significance of some of these things. Htystudent (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Htystudent - it seems you are confused as to how Wikipedia works. 'Taking someone at their word' is the polar opposite of the notability and verification guidelines for citations. Your credentials, while pertinent to the topic, have no standing here. If it makes "zero sense" to you how Wikipedia policies work, you need to familiarize yourself with those policies that are going to determine the outcome of this AfD and others, rather than stressing the magnanimity of your credentials and that we should all just take your word about multiple, unseen paper sources because of your education. Your belittling tone and condescension towards other editors is not doing you any favours. Kazamzam (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to wikipedia policies when I used the phrase "zero sense". It was in regard to the qualifications required to become an admin. I just think an admin should be required to have advanced education, so they are more knowledgeable, not just about wikis policies but subjects in general. Htystudent (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Htystudent - no one in this discussion is an administrator. Kazamzam (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Since I'm familiar with finding out information about historical items in Sarasota County, I'll provide some sources I found that might give insight:
 * Sarasota Herald Tribune has a blurb from their "Slice of Sarasota" but it looks to just restate what the historical marker states (and Sarasota History Alive page)
 * I noticed when searching, there used to be a church on the site that was deemed historically significant by Sarasota (never made it to NHRP) - it was moved in 2006; there's an active draft of this article - this makes me wonder if the cemetery should be merged with the church (or in the opposite way as the cemetery would include a church by definition) - a separate discussion
 * Article about the church needing repairs, again the Sarasota History Alive page is referenced
 * Church is mentioned in passing
 * I want to say there's a possibility, but it might require books specific to the history of the area. For the church and cemetery, you would need to look at Manatee County as it existed before Sarasota County was created. The timing would also be when Sarasota was a town. There's also the possibility of merging with what I explained above. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Peter Crocker is also an active AfD and will be dependent on this AfD discussion. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is existing information, through the (relatively recent) restoration of the cemetery. Bill Whetzel, cemetery coordinator, made a big splash between 1998 and 2004 when the cemetery was facing issues (discussed in the issues section of this article) and submitted various press releases to the Pelican Press to make the story public. However, I only have the print copies of these articles. I cannot find them online. Htystudent (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the print copies are referenceable, please use the correct citation template and use them. We may make limited quotations from them using the quote parameter. Note, please that we still require them to be WP:RS and require that they have significant coverage, and are independent of the cemetery. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article has been updated with five additional sources that comply with WP:GNG, now making it appropriate for publishing. Htystudent (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. I reviewed the additional sources the creator added to the article, and I'm afraid they don't pass the test. Here's my analysis
 * Sarasota History Alive: A transcription of a historical marker that mostly focuses on the church and has one paragraph on the cemetery - not WP:SIGCOV.
 * Herald Tribune on church restoration: This is entirely about the church and only mentions the cemetery in a single sentence - not SIGCOV.
 * Your Observer 1 and 2. This is the same story at two different links. Four paragraphs amid a discussion of other cemeteries - not the in-depth SIGCOV we need.
 * Herald Tribune, "Slice of Sarasota". This is a nice piece about the cemetery written as a human interest story. (Literally: "'Slice of Sarasota' is an occasional glimpse of the fascinating life that goes on quietly every day around us, waiting for us to stop and pay attention.") According to our policies at WP:NEWSORG, "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy."
 * Herald Tribune, "Gone but Not Forgotten". This I could count as WP:SIGCOV in a reliable, secondary, independent source.
 * However, we need multiple sources and I don't see another one that passes the test for me. That's why I've urged including this material with the church article, but as a standalone article my view remains "delete." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added them to note but agreeing to your assessment as I said the same thing above. I think extensive sources exist but it might involve some extensive research beyond this AfD duration. – The Grid  ( talk )  13:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, if I add citations to the 2 print articles of the Pelican Press would you consider those? They are only available in print. Htystudent (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Htystudent As you might expect, this depends whether they are significant coverage, independent of the cemetery, and are in reliable sources. No-one will give you a verdict sight unseen. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So how would I share? I don't think I can upload images here and even if I could I'm sure there would be an issue with copyright. Htystudent (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Check the age against copyright laws in you jurisdiction. Or simply take the risk, make sparing use of the quote parameter in the cite template. I have said this before. ^^^^^^^ Up there 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed by the lengths some editors have gone to to find sources to support this article, this is not typical for most AFD discussions I work on. Several participants have mentioned a potential Merge with the church article but have not "voted" for this result so I just wanted to float the idea now that if this is an outcome you support, state this directly in this discussion and the AFD concerning the church. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Liz I went ahead and merged encyclopedic content into Draft:Crocker Church. I'm not sure we can !vote for a merge since that would involve a cross-namespace redirect until the draft article clears AFC, though, can we? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempt to contribute but there is some inaccurate and missing information in there (as my histories attempt to be as whole as possible). Since I have direct access to the cemetery records ( I know, not wiki approved sources, but still factual nonetheless), everything I put in my original article is true and accurate. Why was the content here not copy and pasted into a section titled “cemetery”? I can do it myself if it has something to do with plagiarism. Htystudent (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to believe that local tax disputes and leases to Boston Market and lists of non-notable trustees are something other than trivial content that does not belong in an encyclopedia. The point is not to include every detail that was noted in the cemetery records you have access to. “As whole as possible” is NOT the goal of Wikipedia. I’ve been trying to help rescue the truly encyclopedic content from your contributions and you appear uninterested in accepting that help, so I do not think it will be productive to engage further here. My !vote remains delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)