Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Deprodded with "If counties in general have lists of cemeteries, this is a legitimate geographic entity". No, if there are other lists of non notable elements, they should be deleted as well. Lists of non notable elements in general shouldn't exist. "Geographic entity" is not a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, we don't have list of all streets, all library buildings, all ... If none of the cemeteries are notable (like here), and the topic in total isn't the subject of indepth significant attention either, then it should go. Feel free to nominate all other such lists which meet the same criteria of course. Fram (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LISTN; as a stand-alone list, if the group hasn't been discussed as a collective by reliable sources "," then it has failed WP:V, or likewise, withi that, per WP:CSC, that every item within the list has demonstrated its notability and has an article. Unfortunately the items on this fail that criteria; there is no body of work (in news or literature) on the cemeteries as a group, and per WP:WRITEITFIRST, the list items themselves are redlinks. I hate to say it, but that seems not surprising: they are all stated to be mostly around a few hundred metres in size. Further, regarding the geographical articles they link to, in only one is the cemetary actually mentioned; of the other six, three are not mentioned in the relevant article, and the other three places they are linked to do not even articles.   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 22:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as above, non-notable list. Do you know about the existence of the Category:Lists of cemeteries in Montana by county? These all seem to be similar articles and I'd recommend deletion of those too. --Rusf10 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The division of a series of lists of places by county is not one for which LISTN has any meaningful application, because it's an obvious and clearly factual basis for splitting up what might otherwise be a very large list. The statement above that failing LISTN means failing V is simply false (though the converse would be true; if it is not verifiable then it cannot be notable), as we don't need sources to describe a group for us to independently verify for each entry that it belongs to that group. If the cemetery is verifiable, its location must be. The question here is instead whether there are enough valid entries to merit the split generally rather than maintaining one statewide list. We do not have many articles in Category:Cemeteries in Montana, FWIW, which may mean that there are more left to write or that there isn't much potential, I don't know. Incidentally, the essay WP:WRITEITFIRST is contrary to the consensus-supported guideline WP:REDLINK, and so provides no authority to cite "per" even if it wasn't also bad practice (really, if you wanted to kill article development, removing all redlinks would be one of the best ways to do it). But a good argument could be made that documenting cemeteries, whether or not they merit standalone articles, is a valid part of our function as a gazetteer per WP:5P. Cemeteries are a significant part of a landscape and the communities they have served, both physically and historically, and I certainly see no conflict with policy or other downside to documenting them in lists such as this so long as they are verifiable. And it is not necessary for individual entries in lists to be notable (see WP:CSC), though I think once the research was done we would find plenty of sources on most of a certain age and/or size. So keep. If you feel strongly to the contrary, a general discussion on cemeteries may be the way to go rather than picking a random test case. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A cemetery can be a significant part of the landscape, many are not though, and it looks like most (or all) of the ones in this list (and in many similar ones) are not. Feel free to actually do the research and show us wrong though, instead of claiming that "plenty of sources" exist. Fram (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good thing that "claim" wasn't my argument or all that I said. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If that wasn't your argument for this article, then why raise it? Keeping this article because plenty of sources may exist for other articles doesn't really make sense. Fram (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not my argument, nor is it what I said. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not necessary for individual cemeteries on this list to be notable, but WP:GEOLAND suggests a redirect to a parent article is appropriate where we don't have enough sources that give us verifiable information beyond simple statistics. If it's felt that Powder River County, Montana needs a list of cemetries in it, then redirect to there. Otherwise delete unless someone finds sources suitble for WP:GNG that allow us make this list something more than a copy of co-ordinates from USGS.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A better redirect would be to List of cemeteries in Montana. Delete this and we've just punched an arbitrary hole in the state given that it's all subdivided by county. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh Jesus, let's delete all of them. Or perhaps you think we should copy that entire USGS database to Wikipedia because "Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer"? We could have List of streams in Hot Springs County, Wyoming and List of slopes in Spink County, South Dakota and List of Post Offices in DuPage County, Illinois and don't forget List of gaps in Coffee County, Tennessee. No need to stop there though if sources can be found we can do the same for every country in the world.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't share your concerns about figurative and literal slippery slopes here. Cemeteries are geographic and cultural features for which we should develop our coverage even if we do not ultimately keep every item presently listed, regardless of what we may decide on other geographic features. And there's no reason we shouldn't take the time to do so rather than frantically clicking the delete button. I'm going to rank your first comment in which you mention redirecting as a possibility as more constructive than your second one. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It makes sense to look at List of cemeteries in Montana and the county-level lists as a whole, since the whole set was created systematically in 2010. I'm also concerned that the massive number of redlinks in these lists may be doing us more harm than good. Many cemeteries have very common names such as Valley View, and most of the bluelinks that I've come across in the county lists have led to a different cemetery with the same name in a different state. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 20 December 2017 (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.