Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutting of the elm

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle 09:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Cutting of the elm

 * Mason-cruft? Nonsense? Rmhermen 18:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please look at the Priory of Sion hoax in relation to this article. It has nothing to do with the Knights Templar. Rmhermen 23:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Priory of Sion is quite possibly not the historic body it is often seen to be - thanks for drawing that to our attention. But the existence of a substantial article about that body demonstrates the point that concrete reality is not a pre-requisite of notability. Cutting of the elm, like the Priory, is a notable tale of a legendary event - and, real or unreal, its notability is what we must consider. For examples of what I mean, see here where the mythical event is used, rather feebly, as a simile about the Iraq war; and here  where it appears in the lyrics of a folk song. The event has notability beyond being simply a stand-alone fairy story. Naturenet 07:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just to be clear about my position. Rmhermen 23:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup, wikify, and merge to Knights Templar, or just 'delete if sources can't be found to verify this legend. Not nonsense but poorly written overview.  I'm not sure whether this was a widely-retold image for centuries, or just another invention from The Da Vinci Code or a similar modern exploitation.  Barno 18:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep good rewrite, which discusses limited verifiability of topic, and cites historical sources from the next centuries after the 1188 event, whatever that event truly was that led to the legends. There were a lot of period exploitations of the core legend, adapted to support the agenda of whomever was doing the rewriting.  Bonus points to Naturenet for the research and rewrite.  Barno 23:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Verify and Merge, Knights Templar, as above. EvilPhoenix
 * Strong keep and clean-up The incident is well documented and appears on Google in many places retold in different ways, albeit that these may have a common source. It may be apocryphal but is certainly of significance and has its own name. Reason enough for an article. This article, although not devoid of merit, starts poorly, degenerates into gibberish, and is too obviously transcribed from another, uncredited, source. Editing is required, not deletion. Naturenet 21:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verified Keep. Good clean-up and cites to sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up I searched Google and this might have been a real event. here's one of the results Stancel 00:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if it wasn't real, it certainly seems to be a legend with some significance. The fact that it has its own name is for me the clincher. Naturenet 15:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would probably vote to keep a decent stub but current article is too substandard to keep. Capitalistroadster 09:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations. This article very weak but based on a quick review of the results of a Google search, I do think that there is a basis for a "cutting of the oak" entry and perhaps this discussion will trigger someone to improve the article. DS1953 21:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Great job, Naturenet. This VfD resulted in a real article! DS1953 20:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable. Radiant_* 12:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not significant in this context whether or not the story is true or verifiable. It probably is not - but then neither are most myths and legends. The question is whether it is notable. This clearly is notable for some people, with over 600 Google hits for a search on 'Gisors Elm', most of which are different and almost all of which refer to this tale. The article is poor but the subject is not. Naturenet 13:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Being intrigued by this curious story I've put my money where my mouth is and rewritten the entire page. I guess those who said to delete were right - not a word of the original page survives. I still think it's a notable story and now a reasonable article. See how you like it now. Naturenet 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I like it now. The Knights Templars stuff is dubious, but the meeting of Henry II and Philippe II seems to be an old and well established story, true or not. func (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.