Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cemitério da Vila Rio

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cemitério da Vila Rio

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

How is this cemetery notable from the countless ones around the world and worth recording in a encyclopedia? Fallschirmjäger ✉ 00:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having one notable person buried there doesn't make the cemetery notable, and there's no other indication of notability. No significant coverage to be found. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seem to be plenty of Portugesuese langauge sources available online. Municipal cemeteries, particularly containing the graves of notable people, seem worth having articles for. Certainly they physically exist, are verifiable from multiple sources, and articles are likely to be useful to a fairly large class of readers (e.g. amateur family historians). TheGrappler (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This would be an easier defense if there was more than 30 seconds of work put into the article... Cemeteries are akin to roads and transportation services — public accommodations if you will. Here's why they're important to include on a per se basis...Properly written biographies of a non-living person end something like: "John Smith died on March 22, 2005. He was 85 years old at the time of his death. His remains are interred at Crestlawn Cemetary in Cicero, Illinois." Well, do you want red links, or blue links? If a WP user wants to visit the grave, wouldn't it be helpful to have a link that describes the history and location of the cemetery? This is an excellent example of where we should just grit our teeth, put notability doctrine aside, and Apply Common Sense — which is what "Ignore All Rules" means. Yep, even crappy stubs like this particular one should be in... Carrite (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't link to it: no article, no link.HeartofaDog (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be the sort of thing that that one could reasonably expect a link to; even if the link is just a redirect to a list of cemeteries in the region? TheGrappler (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, or perhaps to the article of the relevant local authority. I've a suspicion that a list of cemeteries by themselves might fall foul of WP:DIR, rightly or wrongly. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it wouldn't breach DIR if there were useful annotations to say about each one. Stating the name and co-ordinates alone might be DIRish, but if it's possible to include e.g. notable people buried at some of the sites, then that's rather better than a plain directly. TheGrappler (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless sources can be found and added by a Portuguese speaker (given the huge absence of Eng lang sources), making a better case for it than that one single notable person was buried in it, there isn't enough information to demonstrate notability or the possibility of it. NB here that even the Portuguese Wikipedia can only find one sentence to say about it, which just gives its location.

As for: "Are all cemeteries notable"?, no, they're not, any more than primary schools, libraries or sewage works. Some are notable: most aren't, and there's little more to be said about them than address and date of opening. Lists?HeartofaDog (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little sources to show notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created by an editor identifying as Brazilian, yet none of the links, translated via google, indicate notability, they're just listings, and one article mentioning it in relation to a different subject. I can't find anything else that even hints at notability. Bigger digger (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2010 (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.