Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Belle 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  16:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

La Belle Cemetery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

largely WP:OR. If it weren't it would be much clearer that this is just a run of the mill old cemetery no different than you find in most any city east of the Mississippi John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, there are sources in the article for its history, and being successor to the original first cemetery in the town, etc. The deletion nominator or anyone else is free to remove the unsourced, silly stuff about hauntings, either to remove it entirely or move it to the Talk page for ridicule.  IMO this AFD should not have been opened.  Tag or edit instead.  The presence of some OR-type stuff is NOT a reason supporting deletion. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.  The nomination gives no mention of having performed wp:BEFORE;  there basically is no justification to force other editors' attention here. --Doncram (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep OR issues raised by Nom are SURMOUNTABLE.  More to the point, this is an early cemetery for the region, and sourcing exists - including books that describe this cemetery's cemeteries ghosties and ghoulies.  I added  a reliably sourced sentence about a 2005 court case (real estate developers ordered to pay $400,000 to clean the cemetery up after causing damage.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - why is it that for certain people, any nomination for delition must be accompanied by an accusation of bad faith? Cemeteries are not inherently notable. There is no coverage of this in detail. There is no more coverage than one would expect for a local cemetery, which I repeat are not inherently notable. There are no historic figures buried there; there are no architecturally significant monuments. The only non run of the mill coverage is the lawsuit thing, which is unusual, but WP:1E. Substitute "Dick's drive in" for the cemetery. You wouldn't expect that lawsuit to elevate good old Dick's to the level of notability, would you. This is a run of the mill local cemetery where the run of the mill local people are buried, nothing more. It does no good to clutter up the encyclopedia with this...it simply gets in the way for people who are looking to actually find information on significant cemeteries. At some point you've got to come to grips that inclusion is not going to be looked at the same way in 2018 going forward as it was in 2008 going back. We just looked the other way at local interest stuff in 2008, we don't any more. That being said, if y'all turn anything that's actually useful to show notability, I'll drop this like it's hot. And I should have probably just redirected to the community. Doubt there would have been any objection. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * you seem to have missed Henry Jordan, a blue-linked burial. You are correct to see notable burial s as one of the things that makes a cemetery notable.  This one may have others, since this town was a summer resort for very rich industrialists and, well, for rich families, however they made their fortunes.  Like the vaudeville impresario below..E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that the above tag was removed by myself as blatantly fucking false, having been placed by one editor supporting keeping this. That was improperly reverted by another editor supporting keeping this article. , you're quite familiar with noticeboards. Unless you want to visit another time, leave my comment, which unlike yours, is completely factual, alone. John from Idegon (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY, I did a modest, expand source. There are sources, as User:Doncram and I asserted above, there pretty much always are sources for a large American cemetery established in the 16, 17, or 1800s.   I have added sourced material about silly, spooky, ghost stories; added a sourced material about Civil War veteran burials;  and some sourced material on the Kohl Family.  Charles Kohl, a man who made his fortune in as a vaudeville entrepreneur, his firm was Kohl & Castle, either the or the firm which can support an article, possibly both.  Burials of notable people is one of the things that make a cemetery notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I am in complete agreement with John from Idegon. There is nothing in this article that indicates that this cemetery is notable. It's just another run-of-the-mill cemetery, with perhaps one notable burial. Per WP:1E, a single court case is not sufficient to overcome the notability issues. 72.33.2.25 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC) — 72.33.2.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Replacing SPA tag on this IP that was removed.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. I also note that the IP had 9 edits,  total,  4 of which were on this cemetery.  Honestly I cannot figure out what all the strum und drang is about.  It's just an quiet, old cemetery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anon IP, please log in with your usual account. Transparency, honesty, and all that.  Thanks.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence is WP:UNCIVIL. Mind your manners. 72.33.2.25 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per EM Gregory and Doncram. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a disingenuous comment. Check the editor's contributions today, especially those reverting and harassing IP editors. 72.33.2.25 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.