Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Olivet Cemetery, Newark


 * 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. Despite the seemingly sensisble WP:GEOFEAT argument, there is no way this AfD can be assessed other than as demonstrating conensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  17:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Mount Olivet Cemetery, Newark

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only claim to notability is a couple of burials, but notability is not inherited from dead people. Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability guidelines are quite clear about historic sites. This area merits inclusion. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you will please read: there's no claim that it is a historic site. It' merely implied that having a couple of governors buried there makes it historic, which by our standards isn't true. GO find some discussion from outside sources of it as an historic cemetery, and then we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's notable as the resting place pf these historic figures. Just as ghost towns and other landmarks are notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Ghost towns are notable because people find ghost towns as a class notable, and they write books on them which tend to talk some about every last ghost town in the country if they can get info. Burials are incidental mentions in bios, but if you can't say something about the cemetery as a whole, if you can't get people to write articles or chapters in books or whatever, then they aren't notable. There are cemeteries which do get such treatment, but this isn't one of them. Mangoe (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"*Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.
 * Delete Per WP:GEOFEAT "
 * Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." Neither of these criterion are met."


 * Additionally, per Notability (geographic features) "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events."
 * Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Protected areas of historical signifcance are notable per guidelines. This isn't a geographical feature it's a historic cemetery. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - There is nothing to show that the cemetery is an area of historical significance. Having an important person(s) amongst your clientele is not an indication of notability as has been shown above. If it was an historic feature, you would expect to see some significant writing about it. However, other than trivial mentions, I can't find much about the cemetery. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep 19th century cemetery, one of many in city. Eventually to be merged, once created, list of ...in Newark. Until such time keep to allow for further reaserch.Djflem (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into the archdiocese if it isn't expanded. If it is going to just be a few sentences it is best to have a chart of all the archdiocese properties with mini histories. I do not have time to expand this article, I am working with the Library of Congress today. --RAN (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing wrong with an article on a 19th century cemetery that normal editing can't fix. Having several notable burials makes it notable. Serioisly, how much in depth coverage can you expect on a cemetery? Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That works out to an argument that hardly any cemeteries are notable. There are cases where cemeteries get coverage in their own right (e.g. Rock Creek Cemetery in DC) but simply saying that someone is buried in one is an incidental mention, and it's a safe bet that most such mentions in WP come from Find-a-Grave anyway, which is essentially another wiki. Mangoe (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Not every large civic cemetery needs a long list of buried to be WP:NOTABLE. There's no issues here at all that I can see.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Credible claim of notability here for the cemetery, as described above. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment not one person who voted keep has given a good reason of notability. Notability (geographic features) specifically says that notability is not inherited by people. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:18, 9 February 2018 (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.