Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hook Lane Arresick

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus and I do not think a fourth relist at this time is likely to bring about one in this five week old AfD. StarM 21:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hook Lane Arresick[edit]

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

Red Hook Lane Arresick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A problematic article. It makes the claim that it is about "Red Hook Lane Arresick"; the first problem with that is that this is a name invented by the submitter of this article, which gets zero gHits apart from this article. The contributor admits on the talk page that they made up the name. There may or may not be such a burial ground. The best we have is John Burkard talking the authorities into making a Red Hook Lane heritage trail, allegedly starting in front of the said Arresick, albeit there is no reference to an Arresick in the John Burkard source. So notability of the supposed Arresick is neither claimed nor evidenced. The remainder of the article - most of the article - seems to be background on a Fort Defiance and the demise of one James Grant who may - or may not, because it is not specified in the article - be one of the stiffs in the supposed burial ground. Whilst the background scores the contributor many references, none of these is tied by the article or the sources to the supposed subject of the article. I have suggested in the talk page reframing the article to focus on aspects that might have support for notability, such as Grant or the Fort; the contributor has declined and instead concentrated on deriding such suggestions. So whereas there may well be crumbs in here that are verifiable, there is not a coherent article on the subject, nor is there any real assurance that the subject exists and nor is there any evidence, at all, of notability. Although these concerns were clearly expressed in a Prod placed on the article, the Prod was removed without explanation by @DGG: who may now wish to explain their thinking in this forum. Tagishsimon (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, it's primarily about the burial ground and the fort built there and the battle fought there. The fort & battle are the reason for the burial ground , and therefore pertinent information. The sentence added about the trail is minor; and it does not seem a commercial trail (Articles about a historic site or house where the real purpose is background for an hotel or the like are commonplace, , and they usually do get deleted, generally for promotionalism; possibly this article may have been confused for one of those, Everything seems referenced, most of it quite well referenced A question about hte scope of the title is no reason for deletion, Possibly some of the article is duplicative, but that's no reason for deletion either.. (there is a COI here--this is quite near my own neighborhood, tho I never knew about it until today). DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: You don't find the made-up name, the complete abesence of evidenced notability of the subject, &c, a problem? And normally articles are about the subject of their title, so an article entitled A which discusses mainly B & C and not A seems a little problematic & WP:SYNTH? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consider war burying grounds probably notable, if they can be sourced. As mentioned by Capt. JR below, this is not the discovery of random bones resulting from a battle, but a deliberate attempt at a formal burying ground. . As for article name, that is no reason to delete an article, but. to discuss a name. It could be named for the burying site even now, as archeological sites are: Revolutionary War burying ground in Red Hook Brooklyn.(I think that's better than the names proposed below, as being purely descriptive). DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The heritage trail consists of ten intersections in Red Hook where street signs were placed to commemorate Fort Defiance's part in saving the revolution by engaging HMS Roebuck. That and strong headwinds from the same northeaster which 2 days later provided the fog, under that cover Gen Washington was able to move his army across the river without being detected to fight again later. Had Roebuck entered the east river to cannonade the American forts atop Brooklyn heights, this country would not have survived past August 29th, 1776. If the word Arresick is problematic, being a new netherland place name, the used of it here is justified. There are plenty of cites, more than for the stub which exists for Battle_Hill_(Brooklyn). In addition, when it is finally determined where the 256 bodies placed in three trenches near 4th and 7th street are exactly, that proposed article about that burial ground should be called the Maryland 400 Arresick, not the piece of land nearby that is a certified piece of Maryland. for another amateur, the trail led here, a 1823 article by Gabriel Furman here: http://www.thehistorybox.com/ny_city/nycity_your_writer_bklyn_burkard_article000310.htm recounts how Burkard got his info about the burial ground. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to have to tell you that the importance of the battle is irrelevant to this particular article. Most of the material on the battle should go, and I should have taken the time to abridge it. It's another case of the need to work too quickly on potentially deleted article, because of the immense amount of incoming material--and the very few people who check potential Prods, among all the other incoming material I think it's increased lately, to 3. There was a time when I was the only one, and the admins who deleted those just looked to see if the time had elapsed. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't see how a long winded title would make this article more palatable, Red Hook Lane Burial Ground without the background on the battle that produced it would be making the article a whodunit. Man in tree sniped at officer, killing 2, while waiting for signal from two miles away the regiment buried the late col grant and then proceeded to trash the ramparts at brooklyn heights over claims of independence. Later others added the man in tree to a tree hit by lightning. Site later became a heritage trail. Harsh, but succinct. (If it were named Red Hook Lane Heritage Trail, wouldn't all of it be pertinent?) In defense of the use of Arresick. The peninsula that had the point, a Tidal island they named the ROODE HOEK later gained noteriety for a revolutionary war fort built there. It was accessed thru the marshland by an old indian trail later called Red Hook lane by the americans. Part of the notoriety is from an ARESICK along the path, noted for Col Grant, who died during a notable battle of the revolutionary war. ARESICK is new netherland for a burial ground. The subject of the title, a tidal island, is described in the article. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's not the way WP works. Though it is true that the significance of the burial ground cannot be understood without reference to the battle, the battle cannot be understood without reference to Washington's campaign, the campaign cannot be understood without reference to the American Revolutionary War, and the significance of the American Revolutionary war can be fully understood without reference to knowledsge about United States and British History, and many other aspects of the 18th , 19th and 20th century. We do it with references. The general concept is called hypertext. Where it all has to be explained in one place is in an informative sign about the monument aimed at visitors, as differentiated from an encyclopedia page where links are made to whatever articles are necessary. The sign intrinsically must have it all in one place, an independent article about it in a magazine might well find it necessary to give the background, so its readers wouldn't have to go to a general history or encyclopedia , but an encyclopedia --any encyclopedia --is divided into appropriate non-duplicative discrete articles cross-linked by references. WP not being print, it's particularly well suited for such a structure. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to remove the battle details. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Laying out formal military cemeteries in the aftermath of wars is (I suspect) a much later practice than the Revolutionary War. I would expect the burials to be done in local churchyards or other cemeteries. I have a major problem with the article referring Battle of Brooklyn, which turns out to be redirect to the British Order of Battle at the battle of Long Island. I am not formally voting as I do not know this for certain. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the order of battle (see the lede), due to the layout of that article, precluded a more direct link to the 4th Brigade, Gen Grants command. It lists Lt. Col Grant as the commander of the 40th regiment of foot, which attacked Lord Stirlings retreating forces on the left, thru the marshes and over the Gowanus canal to skirt red hook. (As detailed in the regiment history on page 42 here:[1]) As to the burials, See the Maryland 400, the section on location described how a contractor found a mass grave trench, N-S orientation so the interred would face east. The bodies were in ordered rows, as a military style burial. The burials were done by locals supervised by the british forces. The nearest church, the old stone church in cobble hill, was too far to transport; as many whom fell in the battle of brooklyn died on battle hill, in todays Greenwood cemetery. Since the battle details were removed, this should be made more clear; that during the advance to set up siege lines on the heights is when this occurred. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/historicalrecor00smytgoog/page/n84/mode/2up
  • Delete - This entire article only actually contains two sentences that even refer to the article's nominal subject, the unreferenced first sentence "Red Hook Lane Arresick is a revolutionary war burial ground in Red Hook, Brooklyn" and then after an intervening sentence, "They and the Pennslyvanian rifleman who shot them are buried together nearby on the path later called Red Hook Lane" cited to a dead link that if the URL is any indication (thehistorybox.com/your_the_writer/article_5 - I assume 'you're the writer' is intended) is non-WP:RS. I don't buy into the 'anyplace a soldier has been buried is inherently notable' argument: soldiers being buried near where they fell is part and parcel of 18th century warfare, not something inherently notable separate from the battle. Notability requires significant coverage of the subject, but the only coverage here for the burial ground is a self-published dead-link essay - that's not notability separate from the skirmish that produced the buried bodies, which itself doesn't seem to be notable. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The links were corrected.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary cite has this: In his book Town Of Brooklyn, he spoke of the Battle of Brooklyn, and of a lane that wound its way down into Red Hook. He wrote of American snipers hiding in trees along this trail and firing upon the British troops who were pursuing them hoping to cut off their escape during the famous withdrawal General George Washington ordered the night of August 29, 1776. This withdrawal was credited with saving the Continental Army from certain defeat. Mr. Furman went on to write of one sniper who though fully aware he would be discovered, continued to fire at the British allowing his comrades to escape. When he was eventually exposed, he was shot and killed, and his body lay where it fell for a number of days. This was the British way of setting example for the Colonists, to let the American dead remain and rot and have their flesh eaten by the vultures.

Eventually he was interred by friendly locals, in a hollow tree trunk that had been struck by lightning during a storm, this became his final resting place. However he had slain two British soldiers, a Major Grant and an aide during this heroic action. They are also said to be buried at this site along the lane. It is unfortunate, we do not have the name of the heroic American soldier. But it just so happens, the gravesite I mentioned, is only one half block from where this Lane ran on its way to Fort Defiance located at the lanes end and terminating in Red Hook.

Gabriel Furman also wrote in his book, "Many of the minor events connected with this battle and the Revolutionary contest are fast sinking into the shades of oblivion. I have therefore thought it proper to relate this piece of history. Not with the idea that I can be immortalized by the events I relate, but with the hope that my efforts will call forth some nobler pen, to do justice to the memories of many of the almost forgotten heroes of these hard fought battles, and arduous contests" CaptJayRuffins (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So all this source says is that 'the soldiers were buried at a site about a half-block from the lane leading to the fort.' That is not 'significant coverage' by any stretch of the imagination. This is not independent notability (independent of the larger event it was a part of). The last quote doesn't help the way you think it does. Setting aside the WP:SOAPBOX aspect of the argument, his own words suggest that what he describes are minor occurrences connected with the battle, not items of independent notability. A self-published web page essay by a local historical enthusiast simply stating 'they buried some soldiers over there' is simply insufficient coverage for the battlefield internment to merit its own page as some sort of military cemetery. Agricolae (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But now, we have that the arresick was the place where 3 revolutionary war solders are buried. Why contest the fact; that this should be the place we celebrate, due to 'noteriety'- for it's revolutionary war history? I am confused, America is celebrated as being born- due to the battle of Brooklyn, but the place where the battle was fought, and the people that made it happen, should be forgotten because we lost that battle? That a small burial ground should not be significant, historical ground that should be forgotten because no one wrote about it in local newspapers? An enclyclopedia recites facts, this happened, why do you want to delete it? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An individual editor wanting to celebrate something is not one of the criteria by which Wikipedia established notability. History is actually chock full of things that happened (indeed, that is what history is), but not all of them merit a stand-alone article. The criteria used by Wikipedia to determine which items, places, etc. merit an independent page is notability, and the core notability guideline requires multiple independent reliable sources giving the specific topic 'significant' coverage (see WP:GNG). A self-published amateur web essay making passing mention to the fact that soldiers were buried near a lane does not constitute significant coverage of this 'military cemetery' as a notable location. Agricolae (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the notability of the reference. It was published, in a 'book', dated 1823. the other cites complete the notability requirements. Many things took place outside of meeting 'significant coverage' on the web, so by your reasoning, if it didn't achieve current media standards of multiple independent reliable sources it should be disappeared? 240 years have elasped, so fogeddaboutit? Are you from Brooklyn?

No, I didn't miss anything. There is no 1823 source - the reference described as such is nothing but a web site that makes no reference to an 1823 book. It does mention an 1835 book, that as far as I can tell is also the wrong date, but matches a set of notes written from 1824 to 1838 and published in 1875. It, in turn, describes the British soldiers and the American being buried at different sites, but unlike the footnote claims, names neither of them, describing both briefly, the Brits in a field, what was left of the American after the critters had mostly had their fill in the hollow formed when a tree blew over. Not a notable burial site, neither in terms of being notable, nor in terms of being a single site. Agricolae (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I first read of the 1835 source, but Burkhard relates - "The Town Of Brooklyn" by Gabriel Furman published in 1823.Mr Furman was born in 1800, and died in 1854 on November 11, date sound familiar?.. He was supposedly on a trip to london when he found the book that had the death of Major grant... which ref did you find?CaptJayRuffins (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC doesn't seem to be aware that any such 1823 work exists, but this is pointless. Finding multiple sources where the same author gives vague and passing mention to the burial of some people at different places does not make this arresick, as you have decided to named it, a noteworthy location - the criterion requires multiple independent sources, not all by the same author, giving it significant coverage, not just mentioning that some people were buried in some field and another guy was buried in a collapsed tree's bowl. And wouldn't we need two separate articles here, following your logic? One for The unknown place in some field near Red Hook Lane where two Brits were buried and a second for The unknown hole created by a collapsed tree in which an American was buried near Red Hook. The mere passing mention of a soldier being buried near where they fell does not constitute notability for a geographical location, or we would also have Under the parking lot outside of the Alamo visitor's center, The pit beside the hospital north of the Hazel Grove at Chancellorsville, Everywhere along the entire road between Moscow and Paris during the Napoleon's retreat, and given the fate of military corpses in a grim moment of a later war, Leningrad privies during the siege. Agricolae (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the lot next to the American legion at 9th St and 3rd ave where the Maryland 256 were trenched after the battle of Brooklyn. I get it, you are upset I called it an Arresick, something that has never been done, ever. I find that when it comes to naming, editors have a lot of leeway so that shouldn't be the basis for deletion. The use of a hollow log for burial, lightning struck or not, makes plenty of sense when viewed like a coffin. As to the cite, I first found it where it was described as 'during a 1835 trip to london, Burkard found the book Furman published in 1823'. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not upset at all- it is just this simple: how notable can a place be if it took a Wikipedia editor to invent a name for it? It was never referred to as a named place by anyone prior to you. (By the way, not a lightning-struck hollow log. The Brits buried their own but prohibited the locals from digging a grave for the sniper, so when a large tree blew over and its roots pulled up a large ball of dirt around them, the putrid and partially eaten remains were placed in the depression thus created, which was then filled in). Agricolae (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the source of the tree depression story? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remsen Cemetery VA Gravestones and historic marker
Another revolutionary war cemetery with 2 soldiers interred, and 3 added Veterans Administration tombstones of other family veterans. This one is landmarked, same war.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the point is here. Are we going to list every place in America where soldiers are buried as justification for this one page? Anyhow, this cemetery apparently likewise lacks a Wikipedia page, and isn't really the same thing at all: 1) the place in this photo is still maintained as a cemetery, 2) the place has a formal name, rather than just one arbitrarily assigned it by a Wikipedia editor, 3) that it is landmarked imbues it with greater notability, 4) they actually know exactly where it is, rather than just having vague references to soldiers having been buried near a lane. Not the a comparable situation. Agricolae (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, very similar, and it does have a wiki. It started out as a small triangular patch of land, neglected, taxes unpaid, with 2 R.W. soldiers buried with members of their family. Until, the Veterans Administration recognized it and placed 4 new stones on it in 1925. The locals tried to maintain it, and due to their attention, it was landmarked by NYC in 1981. FYI.. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are describing Remsen Cemetery here, as nothing you mention is in the article currently under discussion. If so, describing numerous ways it differs from the Red Hook locale just makes the point that the Red Hook site is much less notable: 1) the Red Hook site has no VA stones, 2) the Red Hook site was never a family graveyard, nor continuously maintained, 3) the Red Hook site has not been landmarked, 4) the precise location of the Red Hook site (or rather, sites) is unknown, 5) the Red Hook site doesn't even have a formal name (or didn't before you decided to invent one for it). Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is all very interesting, but we need some more opinions about whether to keep or delete this article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't buy this 'any vague reference to someone once being buried in a general area constitutes notability' argument. Agricolae (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List-item-notability, i.e. what is required by general consensus of editors of the NYC cemeteries article, or of editors of system of "List of cemeteries in ...", can be lower than requirement for Wikipedia individual articles. And mentions in a list-article can provide better context/information. E.g. mentioning this topic in the NYC article (with proper support/footnoting) could be part of providing perspective about where are the Revolutionary War dead, from the NYC area battles and the British occupation-related deaths (including revolutionaries dead from British prison-ship located in area...was it by Staten Island or anchored off New Jersey, I am not sure) during the war, which would be very appropriate for the list article. Even if the context is on the level of describing how life was cheap and disposition of the dead was haphazard, if that was indeed the case. Something like "not much is known about the final resting places of estimated 30,000 deaths in NYC area from the war, but one example is a mass burial of about 30 believed to be in the Red Hook area"(footnotes). Along with mentioning what is known about slave burials in NYC. I do see that African Burial Ground National Monument (where estimated 419 buried, i think all or most being slaves) is a list-item in List of cemeteries in New York City, but there is no text discussion identifying how many cemeteries and which ones had slaves, nor perspective on fraction that is of estimated slave deaths in the city. Likewise to me it would make sense to have some characterization of American Civil War dead, and WWI dead and WWII dead, and comentary about which demographics got formal graves or not, etc., vs. being buried in potter's fields (Hart Island (Bronx) only?) with no info, or not buried at all, etc. ...I rather think there would be sources available RE NYC area burials practices.
It would be a _compromise_, and part of improving the cemeteries list-article, and world-accessible knowledge, to develop along these lines while mentioning the Red Hook info, in that list-article. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the thousands of soldiers that were buried all around the area during the War, mostly where they fell, I can't see mentioning this specific instance as anything but WP:UNDUE, but that is really a different question than whether a stand-alone page on this non-cemetery should be preserved. Agricolae (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, it's not "a different question". The purpose/requirement of an AFD is to choose between "Keep" vs. "Merge/redirect" vs. "Delete" (vs. maybe some other options), not merely "Keep" vs. all other options. We/you are supposed to consider alternatives to deletion, and a "delete" should not go through if there is a good alternative suggested. Which I think I have done. ATD not being properly considered is justification for overturn of any decision to "delete" (apparently your preference); a closer absolutely should not dismiss the ATD option if there is not proper discussion / apparent consensus. What happened to rebel war dead overrun by British military superiority in Brooklyn seems interesting to mention in the NYC cemeteries article, as part of making that a more informative/interesting list-article. --Doncram (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the fate of this particular obscure soldier is to be considered so representative of the fate of all Revolutionary War soldiers that it is to be deemed interesting/informative on a page about New York cemeteries, then it should be equally interesting/informative whether this page under discussion here exists or not. Likewise, if that particular historical happenstance is considered undue on the cemeteries page, it is no less undue whether this page exists or not. Either way, its appropriateness on the other page is unaffected by the decision made here, making it indeed a different question. Agricolae (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallabout bay is the current brooklyn Navy Yard above the Manhattan bridge on the brooklyn side of the river below the willyB. The dead from the prison ships anchored there mostly went into the river, (british naval burials..) the monument to the dead, Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument in fort greene isn't a cemetery, there is a crypt which has whatever remains could be found in 1873. The excess prisoners were held in the old stone church in jamaica and some are buried in Prospect cemetery. FYICaptJayRuffins (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae is not accepting it, but the point for this AFD is that the Red Hook burial ground can/should be included into the List of cemeteries in New York City, along with that monument, with discussion of Revolutionary War-related dead and other major categories of the dead in NYC (or this could/should be done in sublists broken out from there). And for this AFD, that translates into "Merge/Redirect" being preferred over "Delete", if "Keep" is not accepted outright. And if it is Merged/Redirected, the content of the current article is to be saved, albeit perhaps in edit history behind a redirect, allowing for potential resurrection of the Red Hook article if/when further sourced development is possible.
Thanks, CaptJayRuffins for that information and link. In my view it would be directly appropriate to include that Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument into the List of cemeteries in New York City article, as it includes remains, and qualifies under a general definition of what "List of cemeteries in X" articles should include. As stated at List of cemeteries in California and sublists split out from it, a list of this type "includes currently operating, historical (closed for new interments), and defunct (graves abandoned or removed) cemeteries, columbaria, and mausolea which are historical and/or notable." [A mausoleum is an external free-standing building constructed as a monument enclosing the interment space or burial chamber of a deceased person or people. A monument without the interment is a cenotaph. A mausoleum may be considered a type of tomb, or the tomb may be considered to be within the mausoleum.] The NYC list could very well / should include mention of this Red Hook burial ground and mentions of other dispositions of remains relating to the Revolutionary war, so explaining out that the remains of deaths on the 16 prison ships were mostly buried "at sea". Grant's Tomb and many more items should be added, and discussion of other wars/groups (although some of the weight should be carried by List of African-American cemeteries in New York and List of Jewish cemeteries in New York City). I do see that the broad scope/definition statement given in the California lists is not stated consistently across the system of "Lists of cemeteries in X" articles, but it can/should be. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just last month updated the list of windmills in NY, still visiting/updating those sites. I can get to this, or at least get started with LI.. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rabbit hole, I have been improving the Revolutionary War Heritage Trail and the additional places, a cemetery, the demolished house of Stiles where Gen. Woodhull expired, the memories of Old New Utrecht and Lieut. Col. Grants sword from the Delaware water Gap, I'm busy searching the cites...CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because I didn't !vote before, and because this has gone on long enough, and the correct resolution is still unclear, and I think I am not confident enough that the article should be removed by merger to the NYC cemeteries list (if merger was tried, it might meet opposition there). Frankly, I think this is best closed "no consensus", and I would hope to see User:CaptJayRuffins and others (possibly including me) make an effort to expand the scope of the NYC cemeteries list and its sublists, to accommodate situations like this. And revisit this AFD in 6 months time, perhaps. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 17 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Hook_Lane_Arresick&oldid=1007577208"