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 keep. yandman 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York)[edit]

Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completely unreferenced article created by sockpuppet of a banned user, thus eligible for speedy deletion under G5 (also is a recreation of an article speedy-deleted earlier), but speedy was denied on the basis that it "seems like a decent page". I agree that it seems decent, but the article's creator has a history of creating deceptive articles that seem OK, but are carefully disguised copvios or other forms of garbage. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune Island (Long Island Sound) (where I wrote a lot more in the way of reasons), if someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, but keeping the current version because it looks like it might be OK is, in essence, saying that WP:V and WP:Ban have no significance. Orlady (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This AfD is latest in running vendetta of Orlady against New Rochelle area articles. As Orlady notes, it "seems" decent. Notability is asserted, clear. Orlady is wasting my, others time with this pointless AfD, put in deliberately just in advance of my posting a community unban proposal for the allegedly banned user, who in fact is one of perhaps many misidentified by Orlady as being associates of one former wikipedia editor. This verges on wp:pointy. I am inclined to consider opening an RFC/User behavior on Orlady's actions here and elsewhere. doncram (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lack of references is no reason to delete an article. Every assertion in the article seems verifiable. I'll add some references. Pburka (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The primary reason for deleting the article is not the lack of references, but WP:BAN, a policy on Wikipedia. The article was created by a banned user. The total absence of verifiable content is an additional reason for requesting deletion, particularly in view of the fact that this banned user has a history of copyvio and falsifying sources. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have evidence of copyvio, please provide it. The content is pretty well all verifiable, referenced and non-controversial. If this is politically motivated, then please feel free to ignore my vote. I don't want to get involved in wikipolitics. Pburka (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that this user was banned from Wikipedia after compiling an extensive portfolio of disruptive actions. Consistent with Wikipedia policy on enforcing community bans by reverting edits, this means that his/her contributions are no longer welcome here (with the exception of obviously reasonable edits, such as spelling corrections). In the case of a banned user, it should not be necessary to comb through this user's articles line by line to determine whether there might possibly be salvageable content in them; as the policy states, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." The only "politics" this is motivated by is Wikipedia policy. As for the statement that the content is "pretty well all verifiable and referenced," the only content that is sourced is the list of famous burials, and most entries on the list are sourced only to the non-WP:RS findagrave website. There are no sources provided for most of the article, such as the factual information in the sentence that says "It was started in 1858 and is one of the oldest Catholic cemeteries in New York state." --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congratulations to Pburka for finding a good source on the founding of the cemetery, correcting the date of founding from 1858 to 1886, and eliminating the incorrect statement that said this is "one of the oldest Catholic cemeteries." Those content errors are typical of the problems I have found in articles by various of Jvolkblum's hundreds of sockpuppets, and that have caused me to become so emphatic that these articles must be deleted (in accordance with the policy WP:BAN) unless someone is willing to take responsibility for rewriting them after verifying all of the contents. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Pburka for helping with this article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.221.194 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that sources do exist that list 1858 as the date HSC was established example. Additionally, the article provided by Pburka states that the cemetery is "one of the oldest burial grounds in Westchester" doc.. Clearly these are honest mistakes rather than intentional fabrications on the part of the articles creator. --88.191.221.194 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I'd noticed the ambiguity about the date, too. The most reliable source I could find was the one for 1886. Pburka (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw request for deletion. Article has been rescued, largely by the efforts of Pburka. (Additionally, I deleted a couple of sentences that were still unsourced.) --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 23 March 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.