Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Linn Pioneer 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. A week and a half in, and it seems that there is a definite consensus that WP:GNG is not met here. This leave the SNG notability claim. The assertions that WP:GEOLAND grants automatic notability to cemeteries have been rejected by the majority of the participants in the discussion. There is little sourcing to back up keep !votes, several of which are based on the assertion that all cemeteries should be considered notable, which is an assertion that does not seem to have local or site-wide consensus. Given the nature of the discussion, I would be willing to restore a copy into draftspace upon reasonable request, under the condition that an article on this topic pass through WP:AFC before republishing. Hog Farm Talk 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm Talk 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Philip Linn Pioneer Cemetery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of anything notable. MB 02:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MB 02:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of the references says: "The Philip E. Linn Cemetery has been documented thoroughly by different descendants", but this documentation doesn't seem to be available online. I'd like to treat cemeteries as automatically notable because much of the documentation for them is likely in documents produced before the Web because widespread. One document says the cemetery was established in 1865. I can't confirm this in a reliable source, but the date seems plausible, given the overall appearance of the cemetery. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that this cemetery exists. There needs to be in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MB 19:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Calling cemeteries automatically notable is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen at AFD. Category:Cemeteries in Oregon has 33 entries (several of which likewise lack substantive sources), yet source 1 lists roughly 1500 in the state as "historic", including some 200 that are "pioneer cemeteries". Absolutely risible to say "Screw GNG! Forget significant coverage!" here. Documentation by descendents about their ancestors buried there, online or not, is not necessarily significant coverage about the cemetery itself. WP:ITSOLD is not useful here either; this is a small, generic, local burial place. Reywas92Talk 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for now (disclaimer: stub creator). I don't agree with assuming historic cemeteries are notable either, but Oregon lists the site as historic; additionally, the cemetery goes by several different names and may also be known as or connected to the IOOF Cemetery, per the source I've shared on the article's talk page. Additional research is needed; based on some non-ideal sources, there's a history dating back to the 1860s, and some library/database diving may be in order, not just a simple Google search. Worst case scenario, redirect the page to Estacada, Oregon and add a sentence to the entry so this page serves as purpose as a redirect. Also, please slow down on the AfDs of historic cemeteries, hard to keep up! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you familiar with Oregon's criteria for historic cemeteries? It includes any cemetery that's at least 75 years old and has one or more graves; it doesn't mean there's any real historical significance. –dlthewave ☎ 14:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Likely the sourcing exists to establish notability, but it will take work to unearth it. Ideally that work is done prior to publishing a page to begin with. Here are two articles that may or may not be helpful, I will try to dig up some more as time allow. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a book entry about the Linn family and their real estate holdings. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of these sources establish notability of a "family" cemetery. According do findagrave, there are only 194 burials here. Listings in directories to not establish notability. MB 19:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do you need me to give a clearer definition of "may or may not be helpful"? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep 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. My default is to keep cemeteries as historic places. Relevant policies WP:PRESERVE  WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the scope section of WP:GEOLAND is nonsense. The specific part that applies is WP:GEOFEAT and it gives no pass to cemeteries. WP:NOTPAPER merely says there is room in the encyclopedia to include every NOTABLE topic. Referencing that in an AFD is also nonsense. MB 19:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no guidelines that I can find specific to cemeteries - so in that case I apply our GEO guideline - a cemetery is a geographical permanent historical (locally or nationally) location (mostly permanent sometimes bodies are moved i.e. Poltergeist). If our not-paper policy is nonsense you should start an RFC. My job is to interpret the guidelines and policies as they relate to cemeteries and more specifically this cemetery. Your job is to do a proper WP:BEFORE and investigate our other policy WP:ATD. You shouldn't get angry or dismissive when AfD participants think your nomination is wrong, just do better next time. Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say WP:NOTPAPER is nonsense, I said your implication that it is relevant to determining notability is nonsense. I too apply WP:GEOLAND - "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." Not much more than cemetery directories have been cited here, except the vandalism article which is a minor passing-mention. It needs sig cov to meet GNG. Your job, if you are arguing to keep, is to prove that it does by finding sources. Linking a bunch of policies and summarizing with "I consider cemeteries as historic places by default" does not do that. MB 01:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been participating in geo AfDs for a long time. Often a editor will find a passing mention which says a train stopped somehwere a century ago. Maps show nothing but tumbleweeds. And we keep it based on that former train stop. It would seem to me, the cemetery is permanent. The cemetery appears on the map. By virtue of monuments and headstones it is historical. My default will be keep. We have room in the project for one thousand or one million. We do not need sigcov based on my rationale and based on Geo. Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No part of this or any guideline says something historical is automatically notable, only presumed so if "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". This is not the case, so your point is invalid. Being within the scope of the the guideline is not the same as exempt from the standard basic expectation of significant coverage. We have room in the project for articles on you and me and my great-grandparents' family cemetery as well, but no, we have coverage requirements for notability that you cannot just ignore. Other cemeteries that have been deleted for lack of coverage include Articles for deletion/North Church Cemetery, Hardyston, Articles for deletion/Flandreau Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Brock Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Manteo Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Delhi Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Oakwood Cemetery (Simcoe), Articles for deletion/Dukes cemetery, Articles for deletion/Calvary Cemetery, Billings, Montana, Articles for deletion/Fairview Cemetery (Amsterdam, New York), Articles for deletion/Waterford Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Hayes Cemetery Gold Hill, OR, Articles for deletion/Boothill Cemetery (Powder River County, Montana), Articles for deletion/Stull Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Saint Simeon Catholic Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Mottville Township Cemetery, Articles for deletion/Oak Hill Cemetery (Palatka, Florida), Articles for deletion/United Church of Christ Cemetery. Reywas92Talk 02:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That wall of text is WP:OTHERSTUFF meant to Poison the well ...we both know that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is always in flux. Without a cemetery guideline we are left to use our judgment. I agree with you on other GEO matters and would love to participate in an RFC or some other such discussion about the notability of hallowed ground. (look at the first item on the disambiguation page for Hallowed Ground. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of in-depth coverage, but I'd consider changing to "keep" if better sources can be found. The criteria for recognition as a "historic cemetery" in Oregon are extremely lax: "Any cemetery that has at least one burial of a person who died before that date that is 75 years before the current date and is listed with Oregon Commission on Historic Cemeteries, is historic." Anyone can submit a form and get a cemetery listed. –dlthewave ☎ 02:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete – fails the GNG. I'm usually a bit hesitant to delete articles about historical topics, but with no significant coverage at all (including on Newspapers.com, which tends to be pretty good for these sorts of things) I'm fairly sure that notability has not been established. WP:NGEO simply isn't relevant: none of its criteria can reasonably be understood to apply to this cemetery at all. And while older topics often will have sources, WP:NEXIST's admonishment that "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive" seems apt. As always, I'm glad to reassess if significant coverage can be found, but until then deletion seems appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. I understand a hesitancy to call any cemetery non-notable but I would expect any article to indicate a claim on why it is notable. This one does not. A label of "historic" simply means it has a history, as does everything. Is any of that history notable? If not, it does not meet the bar. Ifnord (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.