| Revision as of 03:52, 18 February 2018 editRusf10 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,121 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:16, 18 February 2018 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,450,126 edits →Clinton Cemetery: 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.Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::: Also {{ping|Djflem|Andrew Davidson}} have a right to know that this has been done. ] ] 03:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ::: Also {{ping|Djflem|Andrew Davidson}} have a right to know that this has been done. ] ] 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.--] (]) 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) | |||
Revision as of 04:16, 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)
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)