Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery

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.

Loew's Cemetery[edit]

The result was Keep - Arguments for retaining the article have adequately addressed the notability issue. A merge discussion for the two related articles can proceed on the article talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject seems to lack notability. Sources to not mention any notability about cemetary, and nowhere could the name "Loew's Cemetery" be found in any sources. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its not the name that is important, it is the concept. Name changes are discussed on the article talk page. The references already listed show notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no less notable, and just as bizarrely noteworthy, as many, many other pages of its ilk. Suggest that the article needs to be expanded with much more info re: the headstone in the parking lot. Seduisant (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hadn't seen the article since I edited it almost four years ago, and it's just as notable. The reliable and verifiable sources covering the cemetery, especially the article in The New York Times, establish notability for the site and the article. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no inherent notability for cemeteries, and WP:N does not appear to be satisfied for this one. The "Other stuff exists" argument is unconvincing. Wikipedia is not a mirror of the NY Times. Edison (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, is not the sole reference, but you already know that. Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This plot has no notability to justify an article. Apparently the author thinks that anything mentioned in a newspaper deserves its own wikipedia article. Torkmann (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, is not the sole reference, but you would already know that if you read the article instead of just looking at what the previous person wrote and commenting based on that. Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read or re-read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Edison (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't hand me the bible and say "all the answers are in here, just read it". Cite a chapter and a verse if you have something useful to say. I am not assuming bad faith when I am confronted by bad mathematics, and I correct the person citing the bad mathematics. We are adults here, I can tell someone that 2+2 is not equal to 1, when they try to tell me it is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced well, includes photo, comprehensive enough. Only complaint is that there's no link back to this cemetery from the Mary Ellis (spinster) page, which seems to be a duplicate of this page for the most part. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements since nomination. Good job! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Merge to Mary Ellis (spinster), the lady in the grave has sources too, see [1], [2]. Her grave is sourced to a book and the NYT, and less reliably, the "Weird NJ" and "Roadside America" books/websites. This is similar to the Couch tomb in Chicago's Lincoln Park or this case in South Carolina I found while looking for sources, and doubtless attracts Wikipedia users wondering why this gravesite is in a movie theater's parking lot. Abductive (reasoning) 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A collection of irrelevant non-notable halfwits from eleventy-seven years ago does not an encyclopedia article justify, whether or not they are interned in your local movie theatre car park. Just because this was mentioned in the newspaper does not make it memorable or significant. Lots of things are mentioned in the paper. Wikipedia should not resemble the New York Times on a "slow news day." Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, is not the sole reference, but you would already know that if you read the article instead of just looking at what the previous two people wrote and commenting based on that. Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article. Please keep your comments civil. I believe you had been admonished for your tone earlier in this discussion. Please sign your posts as well. Thank you. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always civil. But if your math doesn't add up, I will point it out to you. Math is not subjective, anyone who actually read the article can count the number of references. Someone not reading the article and repeating the error that the first person wrote: that the New York Times is the sole reference in the article, should be admonished for repeating that error. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only "lashing out" I'm doing is lashing out to strike down articles of dubious value and notability. Merry Christmas. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable - the coverage in Old burial grounds of New Jersey is fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2009 (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.