Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvary Cemetery (Mt. Angel, 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. Sandstein 15:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Cemetery (Mt. Angel, Oregon)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small, generic, local cemetery lacks significant coverage establishing notability, unclear why this was created without a single GNG-passing source – I can't find any. Reywas92^Talk 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lightburst, it's nice to see you back! But this is a non sequitur and there is no automatic notability for cemeteries. There are over a hundred thousand of them in the US alone, and they are not exempt from needing significant coverage. This may fall under WP:GEOFEAT and because this is not NRHP-listed, there should be substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes no guideline that I can find, so my default is GEO - a cemetery is a geographical location with local or national historic significance. It is a man made feature and semi-permanent. I do not know that we need more. We keep geographic locations if a train stopped there 150 years ago. Seems logical that a cemetery has more importance and notability than that. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true either, we've been deleting old railroad stations left and right – some may have been mislabeled as communities, but even with sourcing calling them stations and timetable details, that's not necessarily notable. There is no basis whatsoever to suggest that any place where people are buried has historical significance merely for being old. Some are listed on historic registers, but this does not extend to tens of thousands of cemeteries by virtue of their existence. Reywas92^Talk 01:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be comfortable keeping cemeteries without sigcov based on our guidelines. They are historical, religious, places of respect, that we maintain and visit. We write obituaries and we create grave markers to remember our loved ones. Cemeteries are important permanent geographic features. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GEOPURP isn't an applicable guideline, it's just NGEO's definition of geographical features. Avilich (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, searching "Calvary Cemetery" at the Oregonian archives yields 2,500+ results. Searching "Calvary Cemetery"+"Mount Angel" yields 128 results. Searching "Calvary Cemetery"+"Mt. Angel" yields 49 returns. I suspect the vast majority of listings are passing mentions in obituaries, but this is a lot to comb through and more research is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a WP:MILL small cemetery. Does not meet WP:GNG. MB 01:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim of notability is made, and by any reasonable reckoning the place fails to meet WP:GNG. And I greatly object to the "more research is needed" assertion by the author: if it was needed, it was needed in the original authorship. Geostubs have proven to be a huge time sink since so many of them have failed to pan out, and it's unfair at this late date to shove that burden on others. Amd if all cemeteries contain some history, recording that is a job for Find-A-Grave, not for this site. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill geofeat, no indication of encyclopedic notability. Mangoe's comment above is spot on. Avilich (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. WP:GEOFEAT is the relevant guideline here; WP:GEOPURP just tells us what types of places the guideline applies to. In my opinion keeping an article based on the potential existence of sources is a bridge too far. If you need to do further research or look through search results in order to form a clear opinion, please do so before !voting. –dlthewave ☎ 02:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a shi&*y thing to say. Good day. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see this entry will likely be deleted. If the article isn't kept, please consider redirecting and merging to Mt. Angel, Oregon. The site is historic and there's a possibility of expansion in the future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92, MB, Mangoe, Avilich, and Dlthewave: Work for you? This would preserve the article history for future reference. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.