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 merge to Wilkins Estate. Zero secondary source coverage shown for the cemetery itself. – czar 15:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parklawn Memorial Park[edit]

Parklawn Memorial Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

NN company (cemetery) where the only references I've been able to find are to folks being buried there. Failed WP:CSD#A7. Note that I removed a fair amount of off-topic info about the former owners of the property, their coffee business and their family history as that info has pretty much nothing to do with the cemetery. The Dissident Aggressor 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions are where we differ. I think many people would agree that the history and presence of a landmark building is totally relevant to an institution, whether cemetery or golf course, and so is not "off-topic". It was your removal of this information that guts the article of relevant information. It is also interesting that you make a note about how a sentence is not supported by the citation after you removed the material to which the citation was in fact referring. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the article's talk page, there may be a case for an article about the Wilkins Estate, but not an article about the cemetery. I'd recommend breaking the redirect from WE and putting the info about the estate there. I'll do it myself if I can find some time. The Dissident Aggressor 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Dissident Aggressor 12:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Wilkins Estate, as suggested by DissidentAggressor.  The Steve 

Even with the separation of information about the estate (not necessary in my mind, and perhaps a violation of the MOS regarding cutting and pasting), I still dispute the claim made that the cemetery is not worth an entry here. Can you explain why you are singling out this cemetery with the claim that it does not meet the criteria as you see it as opposed to all the other cemeteries listed in its category? Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I stumbled across it. WP:OSE is not relevant.The Dissident Aggressor 16:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what that guideline says. Cemeteries are generally considered notable based on the notability of those buried there. Do you hold some other criteria? Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline? I only know of an essay that asserts that and essays are neither policy or guidelines. Cemeteries fall under WP:CORP afaik. The Dissident Aggressor 19:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE, as these are guidelines, not rules. Again, I disagree that WP:CORP applies, as the article is not about the company which operates it, but rather the property and facility itself, which is a separate matter, and is more like a bridge or building. Daniel the Monk (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and WP:Cemeteries are mere essays, not guildelines. WP:CORP covers organizations (commercial or otherwise), or any of their products and services. For example hospitals are explicitly covered under CORP. Hospitals don't inherit notability from people who have been treated there. Similarly, cemeteries don't inherit notability from people who have been buried there. Schools don't inherit notability from pupils. etc.. The Dissident Aggressor 12:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we disagree. Hospitals are connected only temporarily with any individual. As the resting place for the dead, cemeteries are intimately connected with the information on those individuals buried there, as such, as I have already noted, it is not a product or service. Additionally, where do you see any difference in authority as a guideline between WP:CORP and WP:Cemeteries as having been established by consensus? Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's explicit at the top of each page. WP:CORP is a guideline which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and WP:Cemeteries is an essay which "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." There you have it.

I think we will continue to respectfully disagree on the cemetery business. The Dissident Aggressor 23:41, 14 May 2015 (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.