Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Joseph Cemetery (Gresham, Oregon)


 * 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. No prejudice against redirection if/when relevant sourcing is added to Gresham, Oregon. czar 21:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Saint Joseph Cemetery (Gresham, Oregon)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Small, generic, local cemetery with no indication of notability. A Find-A-Grave link is not significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 15:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 15:33, 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 For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * delete No claim of notability for a cemetery which plainly fails WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Mangoe. Fails GNG. MB 01:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. –dlthewave ☎ 12:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see this entry will likely be deleted. If the article isn't kept, please consider redirecting and merging to Gresham, Oregon. The site is historic and there's a possibility of expansion in the future. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Work for you? This would preserve the article history for future reference. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not mentioned in that article. If you add it there, with a reference, then it would be a valid redirect. In general, putting info about topic not notable enough for their its article in another article is almost always reasonable. MB 17:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @MB Sorry, that's why I said merge (so the content could be copied over). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm almost never opposed to redirection. Reywas92Talk 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A redirect is a delete for all intents and purposes. Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 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.