| Revision as of 11:22, 18 February 2018 editPrince of Thieves (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,724 edits →Clinton Cemetery: there are 11,000 people buried there, this is relevant.← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:22, 18 February 2018 edit undoDjflem (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers104,662 edits →Clinton Cemetery: fix linkNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::::Wrong! I actually did exactly what Djflem asked "For those reasons, for sake of transparency, and good faith I have asked nominator on their talk page to split the two.". And you're calling a discussion that was open for one day and had three keep votes (four if you want to count Djflem's double vote) a SNOWKEEP? Not to mention that most of the keep arguements were based on (made-up IMO) procedural reasons related to the bundling of the two articles. Also, Djflem has already been notified because I left a notice on their talk page.--] (]) 03:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ::::Wrong! I actually did exactly what Djflem asked "For those reasons, for sake of transparency, and good faith I have asked nominator on their talk page to split the two.". And you're calling a discussion that was open for one day and had three keep votes (four if you want to count Djflem's double vote) a SNOWKEEP? Not to mention that most of the keep arguements were based on (made-up IMO) procedural reasons related to the bundling of the two articles. Also, Djflem has already been notified because I left a notice on their talk page.--] (]) 03:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: SNOW or not, it would be bad form to allow editors to close their own nomination mid-discussion, and then turn around and restart the same discussion. ] ] 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ::::: SNOW or not, it would be bad form to allow editors to close their own nomination mid-discussion, and then turn around and restart the same discussion. ] ] 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| **FYI: There is already a link to ] in both the former ] and the current ] articles. IMO the info about cemetery is better presented as stand-alone w/ link, rather than either of two municpalities. articles] (]) | **FYI: There is already a link to ] in both the former ] and the current ] articles. IMO the info about cemetery is better presented as stand-alone w/ link, rather than either of two municpalities. articles] (]) | ||
| * As a compromise position, I am changing my !vote to '''merge and redirect''' to ]. This would maintain the existing information, and the links to it through the redirect. ] ] 04:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | * As a compromise position, I am changing my !vote to '''merge and redirect''' to ]. This would maintain the existing information, and the links to it through the redirect. ] ] 04:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' per ] which states "''Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be ] to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.''" As for the proposition that dead people don't count, this is absurd. We have a policy for ] as we have lots of them and ] is one of the busiest place on the main page. ] (]) 09:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''' per ] which states "''Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be ] to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.''" As for the proposition that dead people don't count, this is absurd. We have a policy for ] as we have lots of them and ] is one of the busiest place on the main page. ] (]) 09:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:22, 18 February 2018
Clinton Cemetery
AfDs for this article:- Clinton Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NOTIFICATION: This nomination is a repeat of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery which was opened and closed by the nominator, who usurped language/logic from that nomination as basis for this one.Djflem (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm renominating this after withdrawing the previous nomination because of arguing about rules of multiAfDs. So let put that aside and have an actual discussion about the article. My reasons of nomination remain largely the same that is...
Non-notable cemetery, fails WP:GNG. The current sourcing consists of the cemetery's website, a website that some guy created about local cemeteries, newjerseycivilwargravestones.org (also doesn't appear reliable), and obituaries for one of the people buried there (not significant coverage of the cemetery). A **WP:BEFORE** search doesn't reveal much else. So the inevitable question does not come up, I oppose a merge since there is very little information about the cemetery or its importance, there is nothing worth merging to another article.
I would also like to add the a cemetery is not a populated place, which I believe was an allusion to WP:GEOLAND. Why is it not a populated place, you may ask? Because its "inhabitants" are dead. Also, just because the cemetery is old does not mean it is also historic or notable. Also, if someone is still arugueing that it passes WP:NGEO for some reason I'd like to point out "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." In other words, just because a few notable people may be buried there does not mean the cemetery itself gains notability. Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train 03:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train 03:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. A nomination for this place was just closed as "Keep" literally minutes before this new nomination was opened. bd2412 T 03:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Are you serious???? I'm the one withdrew the nomination with the stated intention of renomination in an attempt to satisfy you and two other people. And yet you still object for yet another made up reason. I said at the top of this let's put the procedural arguments of the last discussion aside and you open up with this comment. Is this a joke? Seriously, show me the policy that I cannot renominate after withdrawing.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Closing and the previous discussion, which was clearly heading for a WP:SNOW keep, and reopening the nomination in this way, seems like gamesmanship. We can't allow discussions to be closed halfway through and reopened every time a participant sees that it is not going to go the way they want. bd2412 T 03:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also @Djflem and Andrew Davidson: have a right to know that this has been done. bd2412 T 03:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong! I actually did exactly what Djflem asked "For those reasons, for sake of transparency, and good faith I have asked nominator on their talk page to split the two.". And you're calling a discussion that was open for one day and had three keep votes (four if you want to count Djflem's double vote) a SNOWKEEP? Not to mention that most of the keep arguements were based on (made-up IMO) procedural reasons related to the bundling of the two articles. Also, Djflem has already been notified because I left a notice on their talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- SNOW or not, it would be bad form to allow editors to close their own nomination mid-discussion, and then turn around and restart the same discussion. bd2412 T 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong! I actually did exactly what Djflem asked "For those reasons, for sake of transparency, and good faith I have asked nominator on their talk page to split the two.". And you're calling a discussion that was open for one day and had three keep votes (four if you want to count Djflem's double vote) a SNOWKEEP? Not to mention that most of the keep arguements were based on (made-up IMO) procedural reasons related to the bundling of the two articles. Also, Djflem has already been notified because I left a notice on their talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Are you serious???? I'm the one withdrew the nomination with the stated intention of renomination in an attempt to satisfy you and two other people. And yet you still object for yet another made up reason. I said at the top of this let's put the procedural arguments of the last discussion aside and you open up with this comment. Is this a joke? Seriously, show me the policy that I cannot renominate after withdrawing.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- FYI: There is already a link to Clinton Cemetery in both the former Clinton Township, Essex County, New Jersey and the current Irvington, New Jersey articles. IMO the info about cemetery is better presented as stand-alone w/ link, rather than either of two municpalities. articlesDjflem (talk)
- As a compromise position, I am changing my !vote to merge and redirect to Clinton Township, Essex County, New Jersey. This would maintain the existing information, and the links to it through the redirect. bd2412 T 04:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD which states "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." As for the proposition that dead people don't count, this is absurd. We have a policy for biographies of dead people as we have lots of them and recent deaths is one of the busiest place on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per same reasons as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery: historic cemetery from 1844 Djflem (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Misplaced Pages should have more articles about notable graveyards, not less. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)