Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Cemetery gatehouse


 * 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The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Evergreen Cemetery gatehouse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

sparsity Donaldecoho (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a contributing property to a major historic district.  If this article is too sparse, it could be merged to the article about the historic district, but I think it's OK as a standalone article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand a lot about the article or the AfD nomination. "Sparsity" doesn't seem to be a reason given in our deletion policy. It could possibly be merged with Evergreen Cemetery (Adams County, Pennsylvania).  Both these articles have some WP:Ownership issues, with the nominator heavily editing both.  I've edited both a bit and tend to get reverted without any standard explanations given.  My interest is in the gatehouse, which is one of the most photographed sites of the Civil War.  It is also an early work of architect Stephen Decatur Button. In short, I'll just ask the nominator to just back off and let other folks edit the articles, even if the edits don't exactly reflect his particular interests.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sparsity is explained later. My earliest edits DE-EMPHASIZED the battle-related history and reiterated the basics: the Gatehouse is 1) architecturally-speaking, a ceremonial entrance ("flanking parts"), 2) home for the caretaker and 3) business office for the EC Association. At one point, I added a physical description, including dimensions and a description of the room arrangement, and it was cited. Knowing the value of such information to architecturally-minded types of individuals, I labored over a topic that was farther from my particular interests than a lot of other material. It would be a good idea to capture those sentences and citation from the archive because there is only one source for that information. My "particular interests" include creating a good article from the extremely sparse resources.--Donaldecoho (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep until and unless the nominator can offer an actual rationale for deletion. "Sparsity" isn't just vague, I literally have no idea what that's supposed to even mean in this context. Is it not full or complete enough? That's not even remotely close to a reason for deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sparse content is of questionable validity. Howard had a tent and headquarters 120 yards uphill from the gatehouse, but he ate one meal in the gatehouse with Elizabeth Thorn as hostess. Does eating one meal in the gatehouse make it his HQ, any more than every clod of grass upon which he trod? Likewise, the town telegraph was moved to Cemetery Hill, and ALL of Cemetery Hill is "near the gatehouse" but does this make the location of the town telegraph relevant to the gatehouse article?


 * The fact of the matter is, there is insufficient editing interest with this article, and the lack of interest is the origin of the ownership issue(s). Sources, other than the Evergreen Cemetery Association itself, are scarce, and that's another reason for lack of editing interest. Lack of editing interest and sparsity of sources is a good enough justification to roll the Gatehouse article into the Cemetery article. Then, there'll be one weak article instead of two very weak articles. If the Cemetery article 'overgrows' due to editing activity then the Gatehouse can be split off again in the future. After all, the Gatehouse is a feature of the Cemetery, and I have read criticism of having separate articles on third-party websites.


 * Amazon is asking $352 for Kennell's book as I type. Brian will ship it to you for $13.50-what's with this?


 * BTW, I'll ship my copy to anyone who will put 500 quality words into either article. My period of research into the Cemetery and Gatehouse is in the past--Donaldecoho (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to roll the Gatehouse article into the Cemetery article, you should open a discussion around a merge instead of a deletion discussion. If the content is indeed invalid, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. Bear in mind, I'm completely unfamiliar with the editorial history of the article (e.g. "ownership issue(s)"), but if rolling this article into another is your aim then this is the wrong forum. For what it's worth, taken at face value your response here is a pretty compelling argument in favor of a merge. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it, merge it, or delte it. Those who have dumped +879 bytes onto this page in feigned offense have contributed 1 edit and +33 bytes to the article.--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point being? The points being made are that short articles are not invalid articles, as you appear to be suggesting. One does not have to edit an article to comment on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources are hard to find, which you cannot understand until you try to find some. Since I've collected them into my personal possession I don't care whether the Wikipedia article is pathetic or not. As you please, remove the 'Nomination for deletion' tag straightaway. Most certainly, this is a topic deserving of a better article, but I'll be doing the long sleep in its shadow (plot 332-5A) before that happens.--Donaldecoho (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As already noted, "sparcity" is hardly the most convincing rationale for deletion. Because an article is "sparse" does not mean it must be deleted, as evidenced by the thousands of stub articles out there. The real issue is whether it meets the requirements for reliability and notability, which is clearly evidenced by the article itself, as well as the cited sources. Moreover, just because an article does not have a lengthy or frequent edit history means nothing. There is no policy that says that articles with few or infrequent edits have no notability. Interest or disinterest in an article are not relevant criteria. Agent 86 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Nominator yields; those in favor of "Keeping" win the debate.--Donaldecoho (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2013 (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.