Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Church Cemetery, Hardyston


 * 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.  Kurykh  06:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

North Church Cemetery, Hardyston

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I noticed that recently, lots of articles are created for cemeteries with as apparently the sole reason the fact fact that some notable people (mainly politicians) are buried there. It doesn't look like these cemeteries are wel-known or notable as such (unlike e.g. Père Lachaise Cemetery or Isola di San Michele) but are only given because of the link with the notable people. This seems to me a clear violation of WP:NOTE: if no reliable independent sources exist about these cemeteries (apart from being mentioned in passing as the place where X is buried), then we shouldn't have an article on them. I list only this one, as a test case and because not every cemetery is the same (some may be noted as historical places or whatever), but the intention is to list many more if people here agree with my reasoning in general. Fram 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources can be found about the subject of the article itself. Jakew 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability of the buried person is not automatically inherited by the place at which they are buried (a re-work of WP:NOTINHERITED). &mdash;gorgan_almighty 15:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Cemeteries are explicitly notable because of the people who are buried there. Having four congressmen buried at a cemetery over a 100-year period of time is a rather strong claim of notability and evidence that the cemetery was viewed as a significant and notable site during that period. Reliable and verifiable sources are provided in full compliance with the Notability standard. I'd be more than happy to search for additional comprehensive sources about the cemetery, but few of the newspapers published between 1821 and 1919 in Sussex County are available online. Alansohn 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Most every cemetery of any size will have someone of civic significance buried in them. There have been thousands of Congresspersons, industrialists, civic benefactors, etc. - all now-forgotten. The dirtnap of the once-notable does not confer notability. Was the cemetary designed by someone famous? (see Forest Hills Cemetery)Is there a major Civil War memorial there? The place itself needs a claim to fame beyond its 'members'. MarkinBoston 16:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Cemeteries should be inherently notable, just as any geographic location such as cities and towns, and now High Schools. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we really want to add to the WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING problem? Jakew 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The dreaded slippery slope argument is utterly irrelevant. A strong and explicit claim of notability which needs to be rebutted. Alansohn 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, saying "all X are notable", where X is a particular class of subject, isn't really a claim of notability. One could also say "people are inherently notable", "goldfish are inherently notable", or "fields are inherently notable". Jakew 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying that something should be notable doesn't make it notable. Can you justify your statement in any way?  In what way is a cemetery anything like a city, town, or school? &mdash;gorgan_almighty 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

delete as per above. Notability is not inherited, we have been over this before in a lot of cases. Barsportsunlimited —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * Delete cemeteries are NOT inherently notable and it should stay that way.  Just because some famous people are buried there does not make it notable.    This one is severely lacking "significant coverage" from independent sources.   An encyclopedia should not be a "Who is buried where" trivia collection Corpx 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Corpx. Wishful thinking doesn't equal firm notability guidelines that suggest otherwise failing articles on cemeteries should be kept. VanTucky  (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Corpx. Unworkable to assume cemeteries are inherently notable because the people buried there. Recurring dreams 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cemeteries are notable and this one is particularly so due to a New Jersey governor and at least a few US congressmen being buried there. --Oakshade 19:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability does not flow with the products of decomposition from congressmen into the soil they inhabit until land reuse, future archeologists, judgment day or plate tectonics remove them. For this or any cemetary to be notable enough for an article, there would have to be substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. The courtesy notability given to every village and geographic feature does not extend to every church or every church (or nonchurch) cemetary. Edison 17:50, 27 August 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.