Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulkey Cemetery


 * 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. czar 21:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Mulkey Cemetery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Small, generic, local cemetery with no indication of notability. Lacks any significant coverage beyond its own website. Reywas92Talk 15:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 15:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GEOPURP I find RS about the cemetery. It is a very old cemetery and the news publishes old passing mentions 1 from 1899, 2 from 1883. I think I default to keep regarding cemeteries . There is not a particular guideline - just a failed proposal. I think WP:GEOPURP For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial. seems like a good guide to apply here. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are obituaries merely stating a non-notable person was buried there, not significant coverage about the cemetery itself. WP:GEOFEAT makes clear that this sort of geographic feature requires significant coverage, and there is not basis to suggest the 100,000+ cemeteries in this country are automatically notable. Reywas92Talk 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Our policy is WP:NOTPAPER. We have room for 10,000 or even 100,000 cemeteries. I have said they were passing mentions. I do not think we need non-trivial coverage for a geographical location that exists and is historical. WP:GEOPURP is specific and I think applies here. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion." It is not encyclopedic to say "Screw you GNG! Go away GEOFEAT! Notability and significant independent sources are for suckers!" and that any burial ground is automatically notable. Per NGEO, this is not "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage", so notability is not presumed. Reywas92Talk 01:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GEOPURP isn't an applicable guideline, it's just NGEO's definition of geographical features. The applicable part is GEOFEAT, which completely contradicts this idea of yours that geofeats get automatic notability. Avilich (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Some links that may or may not help establish notability (pending further review):   Coffin free burial option Kay Holbo landscaping KKK connections -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage amounts to cleanup summons in a local newspaper or passing mentions in obituaries. The Eugene Weekly has nothing substantial either, with no actual KKK connection. Non-notable geographical feature. Avilich (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * delete A run-of-the-mill old cemetery which plainly fails WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG, sourcing consists of routine coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable cemetery. The sources offered by Peteforsyth are essentially routine coverage and not satisfying WP:GNG. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 October 2021 (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.