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 keep. –  Joe ( talk) 09:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Clinton Cemetery (  | 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) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 03:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 03:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Also @ Djflem and Andrew Davidson: have a right to know that this has been done. bd2412 T 03:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply
  • 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 within either of two municpalities. articles Djflem ( talk)
    • True, but if it is merged somewhere, it can always be broken out again once expanded. bd2412 T 13:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that, but in IMO there little or no reaaon to merge and a satisfactory stand-alone article to later split it. Djflem ( talk) 18:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply

This is the type of WP:Wikilawyering bs you engage in all the time. You and others opposed the previous nomination because of the bundling of two articles and now that I split them you're still trying to come up with procedural reasons to oppose it. And I didn't say dead people don't count, what I said is that they do not constitute a populated place.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

No opinion on the articles under discussion, but Rusf10 is correct that discussions closed for procedural reasons (rather than having anything to do with the content of the articles) can generally be renominated straight away. Reyk _YO! 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep per same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery: historic cemetery from 1844 Djflem ( talk) 10:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

NOTIFICATION: This nomination is a repeat of Wikipedia: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) reply

@ Djflem:I really have to ask why you are attacking me for doing exactly what you asked me to do. The problem is you want it both ways. First you ask me to withdraw the multiAfD nomination and now when I do you're saying I'm not allowed to renominate the single article. I did what you called in your own words a "good faith" action and now???-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Please do not characterize what you have done as something I "asked you to do". The method with which you chose to bring this nomination was yours, and yours alone. I simply wanted to point out that in doing so you took points from another editor from the previous discussion into this nomination. As you are well aware, there were issues with the the bundling of Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark) and the recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Olivet Cemetery, Newark. It appeared that your doing so (bundling) was not transparent and not not in good faith. One sees that from your edits there that you have perhaps come to the same conclusion. Djflem ( talk) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The message you put on my talk page said'"The AfD nomination made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery in which you included the recently "closed as keep" Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark), has the potential for confusion among discussion participants and adds a extra burden to the closing administrator. For those reasons, and for sake of transparency and good faith, I would ask that you separate the two nominations." (emphasis mine). So it is NOT a mischaracterization to say this is what you asked me to do. You are now the one acting in bad faith.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Where exactly did I ask you to close the nomination and start a different one, which was your action? Djflem ( talk) 19:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Right there in the bolded text. How else would I "separate the two nominations" without closing the current one and opening a new one?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WDAFD: By removing/withdrawing the bundled Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark) re-nomination made under dubious criteria from the Clinton Cemetery nomination that you tried to tack it on to and do a proper re-nomination, which it seems you've chosen not to do. Djflem ( talk) 21:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

If I did that you would be arguing that it still woudln't be valid because people had already voted on the bundled nomination before I removed the second article. Rather than moving on and discussing the nomination on its merits, you are WP:wikilawyering the shit out of this.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Your assumptions and opinions about what I "would" do (besides being are incorrect) are uninteresting. Please take your own advice. Have you got anything to say about the merits of your nomination? Djflem ( talk) 00:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I already laid the whole thing out in the opening above. And the only thing you've had to say was the cemetery has been in existence since 1844, so it must be historical. Age alone does not make something historical and it certainly does give it an autopass on WP:GNG-- Rusf10 ( talk) 00:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't say it was historical, though it certainly is. Djflem ( talk) 08:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep Wikipedia should have more articles about notable graveyards, not less. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 11:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Historical and notable, definite keep. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 15:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sure the article is backed by sufficient reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and should be retained. But let's cut Rusf10 some slack and recognize that this is a good faith effort on behalf of the nominator to wipe out encyclopedic articles using our deletion process against us, as Rusf10 has done with hundreds upon hundreds of articles in the past few months. Rusf10 is making a good faith effort here to eliminate articles one at a time, the good old-fashioned way, and it would appear that we should give the nominator a break here and reject the nomination based on notability standards rather than as a rejection of perceived bad faith in nominating the article for a second time. This nomination may be destructive, but I think it's wrong to treat this AfD as "disruptive", despite the track record of non-constructive deletionism. Alansohn ( talk) 15:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Going to jump in here, as someone from another project, who happened into this by chance. I'd like to say that I see absolutely nothing wrong with withdrawing the previous nomination and renominating the article, in order to clear up confusion about the scope or nature of the original nomination. That said, I agree that, while a cemetery may not inherit notability from someone famous being buried there, the fact that a number of historical persons are buried in a particular cemetery is notable, and together with other interesting or unusual facts, such as a cemetery being especially large or old, can easily support an article. There's nothing wrong with the fact that a cemetery is populated by dead people, although I can understand why the threshold for considering a cemetery notable might be higher than for a small village. P Aculeius ( talk) 18:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment- the "speedy keep" votes above are not based on any policy and should be disregarded.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment- the "speedy keep" votes above are because this article should never have been brought to AfD in the first place. There is nothing to discuss. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 14:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • By the way, now it is approaching a SNOW keep. bd2412 T 19:16, 18 February 2018 (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.