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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old calton cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Came up on an edit filter as a hoax, and there's no references. But seems to check out through a Google web search. If anything, I'd think a redirect to Calton_Hill#Buildings_and_structures might be in order. Brought here for community consensus. NJA (t/c) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should be Calton not calton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat independent of Calton Hill as such and is of sufficient historic interest to merit an independent article. In research terms someone seeking information would be unlikely to search under Calton Hill, which is now visually isolated from the graveyard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.157.76 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's obviously work needing done here - editing (I've started cleaning some crossrefs and categorisation), renaming to capitalise Calton, and the wider question of the extent to which an article stands distinct from the Calton Hill article and the biographies of those listed in the "Monuments" section. AllyD (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at Google books, I think there's just about enough "here" here to justify an article. Fair enough, Wikipedia isn't Flickr, but clearly this is a case where we could easily produce an *illustrated encyclopedia* style look at the monuments and gravestones there. If ultimately there isn't enough for a stand alone article, well then we can always merge it with Calton Hill or whatever, but I'd like to give any interested parties a chance to expand it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - historically and architecturally important cemetery. Plenty of information to stand separate to Calton Hill. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Angus. If the article doesn't improve within a reasonable period of time, we can always merge with Calton Hill. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:16, 24 February 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.