Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa


 * 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 delete. Core desat 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a directory Whitstable 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is not a directory. It is intended to be expanded by those who are familiar with the cemeteries in question, similar to a stub article.  The cemeteries don't need articles of their own, yet are points of geographical and historical interest, hence the list.  Such lists are not unusual in Wikipedia; for example, there are various lists of places that appear on historical registers in various states.  Omnedon 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not convinced that 30+ cemeteries in Adams County are notable. I can think of one cemetery in Atlanta, off the top of my head, that is notable - but then, Margaret Mitchell is buried there. I don't think a list of all the others in the city would enhance the encyclopedia, especially if they can be readily located from the USGS. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are thousands of cemeteries in the world. Should we list them all? No we shouldn't because it is trivial and non-notable information. Same here. Chris!  c t 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain. After all, one might argue that there are many towns in the world, so we shouldn't seek to list them all (particularly since one can readily find them through Google Maps, Mapquest, etc.), but I suspect few of us would advance that argument. Burial grounds are generally accepted to be both historically and culturally significant, and the utility of documenting such things is already well accepted in Wikipedia as Omnedon points out -- see List of Registered Historic Places in Indiana, for instance, and many other similar articles.  I can see no reason why this one should be treated any differently.  Huwmanbeing &#9733; 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Majoreditor 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A lot of non-notable cemeteries in a list adds up to one big collection of non-notability.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, I think this is the what the spirit of WP:NOT a directory is aimed at. RFerreira 08:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain. This article doesn't fit any of the examples at WP:NOT.  It is a standalone list.  It can be expanded to describe each individual cemetery, which is the goal -- to provide a brief encyclopedic description without having to have a separate article for each cemetery.  This sort descriptive information is not available from USGS.  Notability is relative; by the standard that is being suggested by some here, a lot of existing articles should be deleted because relatively few people care or know about the topics -- such as small towns.  This would be a low-importance article, just as many other Wikipedia articles. Omnedon 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the notion of notability. According to WP:N, a subject is notable if it received significant coverage in reliable sources. Since there are virtually no significant number of reliable sources per this Google test search, the subject (cemeteries in Adam County, Iowa) is therefore not notable. Also please noted that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Chris!  c t 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia discourages the subject has X hits, ergo it's non-notable argument -- please see WP:GOOGLEHITS in Arguments to Avoid. I think the point is that sometimes the determination of notability is necessarily less quantitative and more comparative, as the guidelines acknowledge.  In this case, the subject is something that reliable geographical/cartographical organizations like the USGS document, is described by some local/historical/genealogical websites, and is likely also the subject of local research (though that'd require someone with access to local sources to say for certain).  Huwmanbeing &#9733; 13:27, 4 December 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.