Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of large cemeteries

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 delete. Sandstein 13:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of large cemeteries

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

A non-notable topic, with no inclusion criteria, an uncontainable intersection. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Clearly uncontainable as there's no definition of "considered large" and a brief Google search reveals thousands of such cemeteries. Sadly, despite the protestations of the user above, the position to keep such a blatantly OR list is absurd in itself, but that seems commonplace nowadays. I look forward to seeing his next efforts, such as List of large dogs, List of large houses, List of large egg cups, List of large rood screens and List of large barges. Give us strength. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 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:

We have a category for such stuff with hundreds of entries: lists of superlatives. The concept is therefore well-established and so there's no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Sorry Andy, you've missed the point again. If the inclusion criteria aren't defined, it's pure OR, regardless of a "clearly established precedent". We don't work on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, so you need to try harder! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 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]
This one's "large", so is this, this, this, this &c. &c. &c. &c. Do you honestly believe this to be of use? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It's been a while since I was at school, but since when did "large" become a "superlative"? As far as I can recall, "large" is an adjective, so this needs to be listed under category:lists of adjective-based lists. Or category:lists with no defined inclusion criteria. You tell me which is better here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean keep per WP:OR? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus is clear as of yet. KaisaL (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the list invites OR -- who determines what a "large" cemetery is? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 11 July 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, does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, also without reliably sourced inclusion criteria is open to editor interpretation that could give rise to WP:OR. ps. The Rambling Man, i look forward to seeing List of large cats, ROAROWWWR! Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 18 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 8.5 21:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still not enough substance to suggest its own actual article now, best of course added as a whole listed article elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 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.