Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of burials at Bayview Cemetery, Jersey City


 * 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. This list has already been moved to Bayview - New York Bay Cemetery, Jersey City which contains just a list of notable people and it is well referenced. Bduke 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of burials at Bayview Cemetery, Jersey City

 * – (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 07:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All high schools are inherently 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". Every National Cemetery in each state has an uncontested Wikipedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As has been said at the other deletion entries, portals have no special authority and your conditions have been rejected at the previous AfD debate. However, it looks like this cemetery does have an entry in "Old Burial Grounds...", so this may make this one notable, contrary to the other two. I'll let some more editors give their opinion, but this at least is a good argument for keeping, not just ILikeIt or some arbitrary new guideline. Fram 18:09, 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 What makes a national cemetery inherently notable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge/Redirect to Jersey City, New Jersey (as had already been done). 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 several hundred 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 05:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT? I can see you "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable or improper", but I would like you to point out exactly how I am making a point, or else to stop this repeated accusation (this is at least the third place where you have put this now). As for the rest of your post, I'ld like some clarification on a few points. First, if you merged the info, then why didn't you redirect the article at the same time? Simply duplicating the info is not the way. WP:MERGE clearly states that after the merge, you should replace the original page with a redirect. If you would have created a redirect, I would (obviously) not have brought this to AfD, although I could still start a discussion at the target page about the relevancy of the cemetery section (but that is another discussion altogether). I can't remember seeing any suggestion being made to merge this page, let alone me refusing to even consider it. Fram 07:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your persistent refusal, after being directly requested, to consider even the possibility of a merge is a staggering display of bad faith, and this AfD and the other AfDs you created in response to the request you ignored are clearly disruptive. I refer you to this comment on your talk page "why pursue the destructive and disruptive option of deletion and not propose a merge? What purpose are you trying to accomplish? How is Wikipedia being improved through your actions, when, at worst, a merge would rid Wikipedia of an article that seems to offend you so greatly?" As a suggestion to merge, that you have repeatedly refused to consider. It's a sad state of affairs that someone entrusted with admin powers has such a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. Alansohn 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If I (and other editors with me) don't believe that the info is of encyclopedic value, and that the cemetery is not really noteworthy, then it doesn't really make a difference if it has its own article or a section in another article. And I don't see how a difference in opinion (you want to merge, I want to delete) is in any way "disruptive". You want a merge, I don't: that is not "refusal to cooperate", "stubbornness", or any other friendly word you want to call it, it is a difference in opinion. Perhaps I would have been more willing to have an open discussion about it if your post(linked above) wasn't so overtly hostile. Sadly, it only went downhill from there. But I do appreciate the irony of someone ignoring the fact that a merge results in a redirect from the original article, not knowing the difference between a guideline and a styleguide, and randomly accusing other people of making a WP:POINT, claiming that I have such a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. Fram 07:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Genuine consensus is built among parties that have a broadly equal stake in the subject being addressed. That the AfD process is overrun by those who make little or no investment in adding to Wikipedia content, have little understanding of what is involved in creating and expanding articles, and have appointed themselves as judge, jury and executioner of articles that don't interest them is a sad statement of what the process far too often turns into. The article is encyclopedic, and includes more than adequate reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Notability standard. It was developed as part of a good faith effort to expand and build Wikipedia. You have decided that you don't like it and have repeatedly refused to consider the possibility of a merge despite repeated suggestions, here, on other AfDs and on your talk page, as I have repeatedly documented. It's a sad state of affairs that an admin still seems to lack the most basic understanding of what it means to build consensus, or the knowledge that there are options other than delete for articles that you just don't like. As you have acknowledged in your reply above, you justify your refusal to cooperate because of issues of tone; Refusing to consider the proposed alternative and starting out on an AfD spree seems clearly intended to destroy and disrupt, the definition of WP:POINT. Alansohn 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have anyone in particular in mind when you describe that " the AfD process is overrun by those who..."? If it is directed at me, then it is a patently false personal attack. If it is directed at someone else in this AfD, then I would appreciate it if you could give a name or names. If it is not about anyone in this AfD, then please strike it out as completely irrelevant. Fram 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Far too many to list... Still awaiting your response to each and every one of the merge proposals. Alansohn 12:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Far too many to list"? There are three participants in this discussion apart from you, and I can't imagine that you want to include Richard Arthur Norton in your attack, so that leaves Corpx and me. And for "each and everyone of your merge proposals", there are two separate issues; I am not interested in a merge of these articles, since I don't think the info is noteworthy, no matter if it is in its own article or as part of a larger article. And I'm absolutely not interested to find consensus with an editor whose main method of finding such consensus seems to be to attack other editors. An AfD discussion is a way to find consensus, and you could easily have proposed a merge here, after which we could have seen what the consensus of the Wikipedia community was. But you decided to falsily claim that a merge/redirect had already been done (which is obviously untrue), and then started attacking me, just like you did on my talk page. Oh well, it looks like this is standard procedure for you ([]), so at least I know I shouldn't take it personally. Still, I would very much prefer it if you named at least some of those "far too many to list...". Fram 13:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Falsily [sic] claim"? When you prod'ed the article I suggested a merge. You refused to consider it or acknowledge. When I participated here, my !vote was to "Keep or Merge/Redirect to Jersey City, New Jersey". You refused to acknowledge that this was a suggestion to merge/redirect the content, or respond to it. As to the merge having already been done, please see this link. Every single one of your claims has been disproven. And now this is the McCarthy hearings? No, I have never been a member of the Communist party. Alansohn 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "falsily claim that a merge/redirect had already been done". No redirect was done, and a merge isn't done without a redirect. You have only duplicated the info. Goodbye, Alansohn, I'm done with you. Fram 14:08, 6 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.