Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Burials at Brookside Cemetery, Englewood


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Burials at Brookside Cemetery, Englewood

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. My reasoning is the same as for the recent 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 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all three These three cemeteries have nothing to make them notable. There are cemeteries that have historical significance, but these do not fit the bill. MarkBul 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge/Redirect to Englewood, New Jersey (as has already been done, before the nominator created this AfD). 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 almost 900,000 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 16:21, 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 full historical entries in Sarapin's "Old Burial Grounds of New Jersey". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing except geographic locations (towns, mountains, lakes) are deemed inherently notable on Wikipedia, although most high schools have enough independent sources about them to be notable. A portal has no rights to determine for the whole community if something is inherently notable or not, that is what the notability guidelines and things like AfD are for. The previous AfD, mentioned in the nomination, has established that neither of your conditions (age or number of notables) are deemed sufficient to automatically keep a cemetery. Consensus may be different this time around, we'll see. And as far as I can see, Brookside Cemetery does not have an entry in "Old burial grounds of New Jersey", although Bayview apparently has. That's the reason why I listed these separately, as it was well possible that some of them might have keep (or delete) arguments the others don't have. Fram 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOT a directory of who is buried where.  This is extremely trivial information and unless you're buried at one of the national veteran cemeteries, I see no significance to the place where one is buried Corpx 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument contradicts itself: "NOT a directory of who is buried where ... unless you're buried at one of the national veteran cemeteries." Whats the difference? National versus local? Veteran vs. civilian?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems there is a guideline-- and that it meets it. personally, I think that 3 notable burials is a very low bar, and I'd support changing the guideline. But by our current standards, it is notable. The title should be changed to the name of the cemetery.  DGG (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no guideline, Cemeteries is a one and a half year old style guide which is not discussed, not used (see "what links here"), ... So this is not a reason to keep the article. Fram 07:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the style guide is the closest thing to a policy document in this case--it may never have been used before, but now is the time. It was written for the purpose of being used when needed. DGG (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope the closing admin will seriously consider if such an argument is valid and has any value. I'll not start another discussion here, let it just be clear that I disagree with this reasoning. Fram 09:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; unless the cemetery has notability of its own (as would likely happen with, say, an historically significant burial site) and has non-trivial coverage by reliable sources (and I would not count mention of the cemetary as the burial site of a person that is the subject of the coverage, only coverage of the cemetary itself as non-trivial), then it falls short of the general notability guidelines. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you read the article or did you just read the comments here? It seems your voting on policy and not voting on the article, which makes me suspect you haven't read the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the article; and the only source cited that talks about the cemetary is a whole paragraph long. I see nothing that makes that particular cemetery stand out as notable amongst the (hundreds?) of thousand others in the world.  As an aside, I would request you keep that tone to yourself in the future.  Of course I !vote by basing myself on policy and guidelines&mdash; so should everyone. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Whats your definition of "multiple, independent, reliable sources"? Are you saying there aren't enough number wise, or that they aren't reliable? Please be specific. Notable doesn't mean the biggest or the best it just means, "multiple, independent, reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It also means significant coverage; from the guideline:
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
 * Only the first reference addresses the graveyard directly in detail. The others either discuss the history of the church, county, region or are biographical documents mentioning where their subject is buried.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
 * There goes the first reference&mdash; which is published by the cemetery administration itself.
 * The guideline also goes into further detail about what is reliable and, indeed, what is a source. I don't think either is relevant here.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That leaves 4 more, multiple, means more than one. Two would be multiple. How many do you expect? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any source not excluded above. Which do you mean, exactly?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What detail are you saying is original research, and not supported by that references? Your are also confusing notability with verifiability. Two are needed for notability, the rest for verifiability. There are 5 references from books. All facts are supported by the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not significant coverage. Mention on the cemetery is incidental to the book topic.  We're running in circles, here, and I see no point if further arguing this.  My point has been made clearly, and so has yours.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was never a requirement that an entire book would be devoted to the subject. If it were, encyclopedias could not be used as sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep passes the existing guidelines. If you dont like that... get the guidelines changed.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 19:41, 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.