Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tredworth Road 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The result was Withdrawn because the cemetery chapel is a listed building. Thanks, Philafrenzy. Fram (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tredworth Road Cemetery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * And try alternate name:
 * And try alternate name:

Prod removed without explanation (or reason). No notability for this cemetery has been established or could be found. That it contains war graves is no claim to notability, from the source for this: " There are more than 170,000 Commonwealth war graves in the United Kingdom [...] The graves, many of them privately owned and marked by private memorials, will be found in more than 12,000 cemeteries and churchyards". Google gives 29 results, some from flickr, some passing mentions in relaible sources. No book results, apparently. Fram (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you have waited a little? Wasn't it obvious that I had just started to expand it? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I also don't know why Davidson decided to remove the ProD at a time when no notability was yet established in the article (your expansion at that time did nothing to improve this). But in any case, I checked and couldn't find any indication of notability. Feel free to prove me wrong of course. Fram (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't finished, which was why I hadn't yet removed the prod. Cemeteries this old and this large are invariably notable if you interrogate old newspapers and local history books (which I have) in my experience. Not everything is in a simple Google search. I will do it over the next few days. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

-- do ncr  am  17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The PROD process is not cleanup. Instead, it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" and that is not the case here.  As for notability, the place is documented in sources such as The Military Heritage of Britain & Ireland and the BBC.  See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't ckleanup, it is for deletion, thanks for stating the obvious. Prod removal should also not be done frivolously and without any explanation. Please tell me how I could know that there would be genuine opposition to the deletion? As for notability, it is a short comment in the margin of the main body of that book, hardly the kind of significant indepth coverage one expects for a notable cemetery. And is there any AfD where you don't link either WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE, no matter what the discussion is about and how it will end? Fram (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Search shows it in the news, including for a 2013 attempted grave-robbing. -- do ncr  am  14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Shops aren't notable because there has been an attempted or successful shoplifting? This is not coverage about the cemetery. Fram (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course, in normal parlance "including" means that there is more. However, that Daily Mail article seems to be all there is: and . The article doens't contain coverage of the cemetery itself. Fram (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was even in The Times on September 4. . It is perfectly okay to mention this event at the cemetery article.  I agree the event does not on its own go far towards establishing notability of the cemetery, but it is not nothing:  the event was itself newsworthy in part because it was at this cemetery, as opposed to being in some obscure place in the world where grave-robbery would not be so unusual.  I agree with User:Philafrenzy that "Not everything is in a simple Google search", and note that User:Andrew Davidson found mention or coverage in a book (although i don't find it in my own search within that google book).
 * I also found mentions of interrments there. For notability of cemeteries, the burial of notable persons is relevant, but I don't immediately find Wikipedia-notability of the persons I tried looking up. -- do ncr  am  17:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So it still was in the news for this one event, not for things "including" this event. And none of the articles seem to consider the graverobbing notable because it was at "this" cemetery, which is what you claim. British newspapers found it newsworthy because it was a British cemetery, yes, but that has nothing to do with being "this" cemetery of course. I have replied already about the Davidson book (yes, it is mentioned in it, but no, it isn't significant coverage, just a note at the side of the main text). Fram (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The cemetery chapel, which cannot realistically be separated from the cemetery itself, is grade II listed with Historic England. Listed buildings are covered by WP:GEOFEAT and presumed notable. I assume Fram will now withdraw this nomination? Philafrenzy (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (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.