Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in the United States


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

List of cemeteries in the United States
A list that can only become too large and unmaintainable if allowed to remain. This is much better handled through categories. Indrian 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. - Kookykman| (t) e 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can expalin what this list does that a category can't. --djrobgordon 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories are all well and good, but lists give more context and explanation. -- Necrothesp 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While a list could give context and explanation, this one doesn't bother to do so in the intro. Nor has it established any criteria to limit inclusion other than being physically located in the U.S.  A small family cemetary that is lost in the woods merits inclusion (yes, doing genealogy research I've gone tramping through the woods looking for such).  I've also seen small private cemetaries on the roadside with 5-10 tombstones.   Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is exactly what this list is designed to be.  At even 5 cemetaries per town or city, we would end up with over 25,000 cemetaries on this list.  As the nominator said, categories is the way to approach this.GRBerry 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it couldn't do with inclusion criteria, but most of the cemeteries on the list at the moment do actually have their own article. The fact an article is not fully developed yet has never been a reason to delete it from Wikipedia. Otherwise almost all stubs would disappear, something I know some people would like, but the majority almost certainly wouldn't. And I completely disagree with your claim that this list is designed to be an indiscrimate collection of information - with an adequate introduction and criteria for inclusion it could be a very useful article. Are you saying that instead of editing articles we don't think are adequate we should just delete them? Seems to fly in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. -- Necrothesp 12:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp. --JJay 00:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:31, 21 June 2006 (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.