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.
Keep The topic passes
WP:LISTN -- for example, see
The Largest Cemetery or
Cities Journal. The complaint about uncontainable is absurd as we already have a massive
list of cemeteries, which covers them all. That's organised geographically which isn't very helpful if you want to browse the biggest of them. This list meets that need and, as places like Wadi-us-Salaam are quite incredible, there's no shortage of notable entries.
Andrew D. (
talk)
18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
By the way, your first link is two pages in a book that is in no way dedicated to "cemeteries that are considered large", it's a passing mention, so that's pointless (and in a book which is simply tabloid). The second (from a clickbait/listcruft blog site) is ironic given that even the top one doesn't feature in this incomplete and uncontainable list. This is of no use to our readers. Who is going to look for a subjective list of "large" cemeteries? At least when it was "Cemeteries by size" it had some borderline encyclopedic usage.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
19:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It's very normal for us to have versions of lists which rank or highlight the biggest examples. Examples include:
Oh Andrew, Andrew. I thought you would be well aware of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once we're done here, I'll think about nominating the other "conceptually established" nonsense. One imagines they have defined inclusion criteria and would rely on reliable sources, unlike the garbage you're defending here. But I do look forward to your
List of large dogs submission (I'm sure I can find passing mentions of "large dogs" in the kind of literature you are propounding as reliable sources, so let's get it on!), coming to a Wikipedia near you soon!
The Rambling Man (
talk)
19:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
RamblingMan, iunless you and Andrew are very old and close friends indeed, I wish you would tone down the snark. That said, the difference between Andrew's list and this article is that this list lacks definition. A List of urban parks by size is a fine thing, a list of large cemeteries with no attempt to define the world "large" is an unmanageable thing.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Good work on the big dog list redirect!! Problem is the list, like this, is entirely without inclusion criteria, it's non-encyclopedic, it's OR, it's not what Wikipedia is about at all. Shame.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:OSE explains that "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." So, as we have hundreds of such articles and they include similar topic such as urban parks and city squares, the precedent is clearly established.
Andrew D. (
talk)
20:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I'll help you out.
This PDF from Ipswich declares the site of the Ipswich cemetery to be a " large site". So it qualifies for this list.
This one is "quite large" so I assume it "partially" qualifies. Come on Andrew, you know better than this.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Basically per TRM. There's no clear inclusion criteria. Might as well also create
list of modest cemeteries and
list of small graveyards. It is not a list of cemeteries by size. Is there even accurate, standardized kinds of data to make a list of cemeteries by size possible without it being a mishmash of what cemeteries are included in certain reliable sources, reporting data from different points in time, etc. If all cemeteries had to register with some central authority which set categories like "large", that would be on thing, but a hodgepodge list of what various sources have referred to using a word like "large" is not ueful/appropriate. — Rhododendritestalk \\
22:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete because it lacks inclusion criteria and lists lacking definition cannot be useful. Flag me to revisit if someone improves the article by defining tight parameters.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as "large" is too vague and subjective to make this a useful list and is inevitably going to make this a magnet for
WP:OR. Even if we get rid of that by insisting that a reliable source uses the term "large" the standards used by reliable sources will vary hugely. This is very different from a list of the largest of some category of object, as it is possible to objectively verify that (say) the Sun is the largest object in the solar system, whereas it is not possible to objectively verify that some cemetery is "large". Hut 8.521:57, 19 July 2016 (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.
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.
Keep The topic passes
WP:LISTN -- for example, see
The Largest Cemetery or
Cities Journal. The complaint about uncontainable is absurd as we already have a massive
list of cemeteries, which covers them all. That's organised geographically which isn't very helpful if you want to browse the biggest of them. This list meets that need and, as places like Wadi-us-Salaam are quite incredible, there's no shortage of notable entries.
Andrew D. (
talk)
18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
By the way, your first link is two pages in a book that is in no way dedicated to "cemeteries that are considered large", it's a passing mention, so that's pointless (and in a book which is simply tabloid). The second (from a clickbait/listcruft blog site) is ironic given that even the top one doesn't feature in this incomplete and uncontainable list. This is of no use to our readers. Who is going to look for a subjective list of "large" cemeteries? At least when it was "Cemeteries by size" it had some borderline encyclopedic usage.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
19:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It's very normal for us to have versions of lists which rank or highlight the biggest examples. Examples include:
Oh Andrew, Andrew. I thought you would be well aware of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once we're done here, I'll think about nominating the other "conceptually established" nonsense. One imagines they have defined inclusion criteria and would rely on reliable sources, unlike the garbage you're defending here. But I do look forward to your
List of large dogs submission (I'm sure I can find passing mentions of "large dogs" in the kind of literature you are propounding as reliable sources, so let's get it on!), coming to a Wikipedia near you soon!
The Rambling Man (
talk)
19:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
RamblingMan, iunless you and Andrew are very old and close friends indeed, I wish you would tone down the snark. That said, the difference between Andrew's list and this article is that this list lacks definition. A List of urban parks by size is a fine thing, a list of large cemeteries with no attempt to define the world "large" is an unmanageable thing.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Good work on the big dog list redirect!! Problem is the list, like this, is entirely without inclusion criteria, it's non-encyclopedic, it's OR, it's not what Wikipedia is about at all. Shame.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:OSE explains that "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." So, as we have hundreds of such articles and they include similar topic such as urban parks and city squares, the precedent is clearly established.
Andrew D. (
talk)
20:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I'll help you out.
This PDF from Ipswich declares the site of the Ipswich cemetery to be a " large site". So it qualifies for this list.
This one is "quite large" so I assume it "partially" qualifies. Come on Andrew, you know better than this.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Basically per TRM. There's no clear inclusion criteria. Might as well also create
list of modest cemeteries and
list of small graveyards. It is not a list of cemeteries by size. Is there even accurate, standardized kinds of data to make a list of cemeteries by size possible without it being a mishmash of what cemeteries are included in certain reliable sources, reporting data from different points in time, etc. If all cemeteries had to register with some central authority which set categories like "large", that would be on thing, but a hodgepodge list of what various sources have referred to using a word like "large" is not ueful/appropriate. — Rhododendritestalk \\
22:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete because it lacks inclusion criteria and lists lacking definition cannot be useful. Flag me to revisit if someone improves the article by defining tight parameters.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as "large" is too vague and subjective to make this a useful list and is inevitably going to make this a magnet for
WP:OR. Even if we get rid of that by insisting that a reliable source uses the term "large" the standards used by reliable sources will vary hugely. This is very different from a list of the largest of some category of object, as it is possible to objectively verify that (say) the Sun is the largest object in the solar system, whereas it is not possible to objectively verify that some cemetery is "large". Hut 8.521:57, 19 July 2016 (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.