Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eisenhower Tree


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Eisenhower Tree

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: In the 100+ years of its existence, not once has this tree had enough information outside of trivial golf feats performed by others. The article is a copy and paste job of a subsection of Augusta National Golf Club and only exists to justify its inclusion at Deaths in 2014. The creator insists Wiki Golf is going to provide more, but based off the years of it not having its own article, and whatever else they could rustle up just be more trivial feats, I feel it's fine as a subsection. Article is a clear cut example of WP:RECENT, and should be redirected back to the golf park article, hence me also supporting a Merge. Rusted AutoParts 05:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - As article creator, I'm of course in favor of keeping it. Tree is notable; its removal has been the subject of articles by multiple news sources (ESPN, ABC News, CBS, Golf Digest, Golf Channel, Politico, USA Today, etc.). The tree is called "iconic"  and "among the most famous trees in golf" . It's history in the most prestigious tournament in American golf and with a former US president makes it notable (see p. 135 in The Making of the Masters: Clifford Roberts, Augusta National, and Golf's Most Prestigious Tournament).  While I admit I based it off of the entry on Augusta National Golf Club, I did my best to expand upon it though I have zero knowledge of golf.  And yes, I created it because of the rules on Deaths in 2014 as I felt it notable enough to be included and have its own article. I have asked WikiProject Golf here to add to the article and to comment here on the AfD nomination as they know more about the subject than I. PS - a quick glance at articles on Category:Individual trees shows many with articles of comparable length and detail. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Its Today's news. Here at Wikipedia, we chronicle news that sticks with people throughout time. Kennedy's assassination, the Miracle at Lake Placid, Obama getting elected, those stories withstand the tests of time. A tree being removed....no. As I've stated, if it were as famous as you proclaim it to be, why in the 11 years of Wikipedia didn't it get its own article? Because its not highlightable enough. A few moments in golf history won't cut it. Anyone can use the word "iconic" to label anything. An "iconic" pizza parlour closed down recently where I'm at, where's its article? Rusted AutoParts 06:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If your pizza shop was part of the master's tournament or mentioned by a dozen major press outlets, is say make an article. This tree is both those things. It's mentioned in books and part of golf culture and history. If I knew more about sports I'd try to make an appropriate analogy to some other sports icon. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I just want to point out that "why in the 11 years of Wikipedia didn't it get its own article?" is a classical non-argument, as it could only be answered in a speculative way (if you want to know why something's not happened, just ask the person who hasn't done it...). Stripped down to its core, it has nothing to do with the article or its subject, and everything with Wikipedia's policies. Let's never forget that notability is always created outside of the small world of Wikipedia. And btw - there's still some several millions of articles waiting to be written. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think this is notable in its own right. Phrases such as "the Tree was probably the deciding factor" and that Tiger Woods played a shot under it, doesn't strike me of being notable. So as I'm LOGGED on, I think this WOOD be delete. Chortle.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Rusted Autoparts that the tree isn't notable enough to have its own article or to be included in the Death Section. Wikipedia is not a news service and should not be treated as one DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Created to prevent a redlink at Deaths in 2014, coincidentally by Rusted AutoParts. A few names dropped in it, which can be and was already done in the parent Augusta article. —  Wylie pedia  16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a large explosion of coverage since it's being removed. While this may be accused of recentism, I feel that these and the other earlier mentions (and I'm sure there are more from offline sources such as books) means that I believe that this fulfils WP:GNG and should be kept. Also as an iconic piece of golf history, I'd say it should have it's own article. Otherwise, articles of other iconic features in other sports such as Lord's Pavilion and Statue of Bobby Moore, Wembley should be deleted too.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. The two you've mentioned have a wealth of information in regards to its history, while this tree doesn't aside from a few obscure golf moments. And if this tree is famous and didn't get its own article until now, where's not Rae's Creek's article? "The Big Oak Tree"'s? Ike's Pond's? Rusted AutoParts 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment/Rebuttal - The reason for the creation shouldn't be an issue, its notability is the prime concern. There are a number of individual tree articles with far less notability (imho) that aren't deleted, so I wonder why this would should be (see for example Bialbero de Casorzo, Boab Prison Tree, Derby, Burmis Tree, Buttonball Tree, Changi Tree, Curtain Fig Tree, Davie Poplar, El Pino (The Pine Tree), Gija Jumulu, Haya de Herguijuela, Historical tamarind, Kapok tree, Boa Entrada, King Cypress, MacArthur Pine to name a few from the Individual Tree category). Let's compare apples to apples here. Few trees are going to be as notable as a person, but compared to other trees with articles, the Eisenhower Tree is relatively notable. If the likes of MacArthur Pine are on Wikipedia, the Eisenhower Tree deserves a page as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Add the Chained Oak to that as well!  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge with the existing Augusta National Golf Club article. It's notable amongst the local community of Augusta and to golfing, but not internationally so in its own right.  --Zerbey (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect with Augusta National Golf Club, not independently notable. GiantSnowman 18:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect I concur with Giant that the tree is not independently notable. Consequently, it should be condensed and merged with the Augusta National Golf Club page.


 * Keep A well-known landmark at one of the most famous golf courses in the world, home to one of the most famous golf tournaments in the world. The demise of the tree is getting plenty of mainstream sports coverage, something that obviously would not happen it if was just another tree.  It does seem out of place on the Deaths list, however. Drpickem (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not Recentism, the tree was already mentioned in this article, and as C and E mentioned, there are much less notable trees with articles on wikipedia, the standard (low bar) has already been set and also the media coverage it is getting is also just adding to notability...--Stemoc (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The above keep nominations don't hold water. "It's a landmark on a notable golf course" isn't article material and "media coverage adding to notability" isn't true as its only covering its removal, which has already been mentioned. Rusted AutoParts 00:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * DELETE - With all due respect to the content creator we are talking about a dead tree. This is not a thing of repute. If it needs to then MERGE it with [|AUGUSTA NATIONAL GOLF CLUB]but most definitely not a dedicated page of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Admiral238 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep - 1) the sheer number of references to this 'landmark' make it notable. When I read about something I know nothing about, I (and millions like me) immediately refer to Wikipedia to expand our knowledge base. 2) I detest the ideas of any small group of people - be they Nazis, liberals, Tea-baggers or actors - telling the population what is important (read that 'notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.97.106 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes! Godwin's law yet again ..... WWGB (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This IP hasn't edited since 2012, and this seems more like a thinly covered jab at his view of the website's politics. Rusted AutoParts 03:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:HUMAN. Many people's IPs are not static, so looking at edit frequency for a given IP tells you nothing. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't have any idea why this is for deletion. It is very well known and is notable. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again this isn't a legit argument for keeping it. It fails general notability guidelines to warrant its own article. Rusted AutoParts 02:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but will you rebut every "keep"? Not everyone agrees with you about what is "notable", just as not everyone agrees with my (yourself included).  EvergreenFir (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Im rebutting the ones that simply argue "it's notable because its notable". <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 02:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's bordering on hounding. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That would imply I'm following each and every one of these editors around on different articles to bother them. That's not the case. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't find it fair to rebut my vote. I have the right to vote what i think. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find it fair you think I'm discounting your vote. In the end, what I think doesn't matter. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 00:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i thought you were. I just got confused.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Before another similar article, or Godwin, gets mentioned again, allow me to say OSE is never a valid argument. —  Wylie  pedia  04:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. -- Green  C  05:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's current news. Doesn't make it notable. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 06:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it does. Read WP:GNG for how notability is defined. Also summarized at WP:42. The sources used in the article are "reliable". News outlets such as AP, ESPN, NYT etc. are reliable sources that count towards notability. There is nothing in GNG about "current news" whatever that means. "News" is by definition current and discarding sources for being news, or current, is unsupported in any rule. -- Green  C  06:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt after years of being a subsection on another article that its removal makes it suddenly notable. As I stated above, a majority of it is a copy/paste job from info we read over at the original article. It can just as easily stay where it's at and serve the same purpose instead of wasting an entire article on such little information. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 06:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't understand your argument. The article is 4 times longer than the section at Augusta National Golf Club, an article itself which is already too long. It's normal and encouraged to split off material and create "main article" links when things get too long. There is nothing wrong with "copy and paste" that is done all the time, though it needs to be recorded on the talk page to keep article history attribution intact see copied. A standalone article allows it to expand and develop (pictures, infoboxes, categories, lead-sections, external links etc) that a sub-section is more limited. There is no such thing as a "wasted" article, they are free and unlimited. -- Green  C  19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not doubting the golf community finds it notable, I just feel its not notable enough for its own article. This article sprung up two days ago, after it served as a subsection for many years on Augusta. In my opinion, the creator made it to justify its inclusion on "Deaths in 2014". And a majority of the info comes from news sources reporting its removal, after many years of not being reported on. Just because it may be somewhat notable,,it doesn't mean a full article should be devoted to it. Readers get the same information at the subsection at Augusta. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the article has a a couple sentences about the removal, (expanded) the rest of it is about the tree and its history and the history of Eisenhower. Most of the material is out of place in an article just about a golf course. -- Green  C  22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And BTW I don't play golf. Do you? -- Green  C  22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: I have trouble believing that this is even a topic for discussion. It's a tree.  At the very least, remove it from the recent deaths listing.  Geneb1955 08:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is the article itself, not the recent deaths list. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this in any way a reason to keep? It fails alot of guidelines to remain. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 13:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When I say it looks fine, I mean that I consider it meets the criteria. Deb (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously meets WP:GNG. It is not a recent event but an object, as such WP:NOTNEWS and related guidelines do not apply. In any case the provided sources clearly explain that the tree was notable in the previous decades. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Made the New York Times a few times, in fact. And mentioned in tons of books . Collect (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Its not a human or an animal. Suggest removing it from the recent deaths page. elg26 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elg26 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia has many articles about objects including trees: Category:Individual trees. -- Green  C  20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is the article itself, not the recent deaths list. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Mention the tree in an entry for the golf course. Agreed this does not belong on the recent deaths page.192.75.88.232 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is the article itself, not the recent deaths list. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: The major problem here is it's only now just getting coverage. Where was it when it wasn't removed? A lot of people mentioned numerous other trees with short articles, all of which should be disposed of too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.54.45 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there are plenty of old sources, see the article of Google Books. There is a particularly long one from 1999 in the New York Times for example. -- Green  C  20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability is about the sources; multiple substantial pieces of independently-published coverage, from which a sourced article may be written. This subject meets that criteria, as clearly demonstrated by the footnotes showing in the piece. Pulling this from the "deaths" listing is a separate subject and that strikes me as quite reasonable. But the topic itself passes GNG with flying colors. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * merge back to Augusta National Golf Club The amount of material here is not out of line with that of other points of interest on the course and I don't think that having to remove the tree due to damage is enough to justify a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Augusta National Golf Club. It's a...tree.  Seriously, a few name-drops in the context of some historical events does not make a tree notable, it make sit worthy of mention in a respective article. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge – Fails WP:NOTNEWS. "Significant sources" in this case appears to be really a case of multiple media outlets rushing like lemmings to parrot the same story on their website.  Show me something from earlier than two or three days ago and I'll believe that there is significant coverage. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  02:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 5 excellent sources from pre-2014. A full-length NYT piece, another NYT piece, USA today, Saturday Evening Post and a book. There are even more books not (yet) in the article. Also the sources directly assert notability calling it "among the most famous landmarks in golf". -- Green  C  03:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Books and sporadic news reports don't make this article notable. And with a majority of the keep arguments consisting of "other stuff exists" arguments, I may remind you all there's also Rae's Creek and Ike's Pond at the course, also referred to as landmarks. Where's their articles? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 03:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Books and reliable sources are exactly what makes this topic notable. --  Green  C  03:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. If that was the case, the article would've been create years ago. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 03:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There were enough older sources to create an article, but no one did. It's like people, articles get created after they die, incorporating old sources plus new obituary sources. -- Green  C  03:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But those weren't created simply to justify being added to Deaths in 2014. Anyway, enough bickering, lets wait for the results. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 03:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be included in Deaths in 2014. That question can be solved with an RfC if needed. This AfD should be an objective assessment of notability, not a way to solve a dispute over inclusion in Deaths in 2014. -- Green  C  04:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear that, everyone? If it hasn't been created by now, it must be non-notable, so there's no need to create any more articles about things that existed in the past. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's mature. Shining example of Wikipedia's finest editors. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats for completing a decade on wikipedia last week :) ...--Stemoc (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources in the article, and the subject passes the GNG. Many of the arguments for deletion appear to think that a tree can't be notable, but I don't see why trees would be an exemption to the GNG aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Its made an enemy of an American president who was in office at the time, its pine needles caused world famous golfer Tiger Woods to injure himself significantly, ruining his career, or at least hurting it badly, it affected a master's game once, and golfer Jack Nicklaus called it iconic. Based on its history, and coverage of it for various things, it clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  04:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are all very trivial. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rusted AutoParts, your zeal to smash, burn, annihilate and expurgate this article has by now surely been noted by everyone who has visited this page, and I assure you we are all very impressed. There is no need to expend any more energy in making your views on this subject known. Everyking (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep; the sources provided by EvergreenFir seem to easily satisfy the requirements of the GNG. 28bytes (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 19.  — cyberbot I  <sup style="color:green;font-family:arnprior">Notify <sub style="margin-left:-6.0ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: The coverage in sources including many respectable newspapers indicates notability and so it clearly passes WP:GNG. There appears to be no reason to delete. There are plenty of trees on Wikipedia; for example the Anne Frank tree has a long-ish article and this tree seems just as notable. Suspect some WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at play here. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I added Not a ballot because over 25 votes in the first 24 hours due to the heated debate at Deaths in 2014 which is one of the most highly trafficked articles on Wikipedia with 10s of thousands of viewers a day, meaning many editors will come here with an interest in the outcome of including (nor not) this article in Deaths in 2014, rather than the merits of this articles notability alone. -- Green  C  22:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm generally in favor of deleting news-y event articles, but as Cyclopia notes, this isn't about an event (we can probably all agree that a Death of the Eisenhower Tree would be an absurd article). Events tend to have pretty ephemeral impact, but in this case, we're talking about a tree that made headlines throughout a 50-year or so period. While I recognize that this constitutes an WP:OSE appeal, I still can't help noting that we have articles on people less notable than this tree. It looks like at least some of the editors advocating deletion are just carrying on a dispute from the Deaths in 2014 talk page. --BDD (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable tree. When we have sources that stretch quite a few years back it's clear that this is notable. Sure, a tree on a golf course might not be the most encyclopedic topic, but we have many articles on stranger things.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable tree. Well documented, and apparently well loved by golfers. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, and note that I didn't know we even had a Deaths in 2014 article. NOTNEWS is a very good reason to delete an article about a subject that's only getting coverage in news stories over a short period of time, even when the subject isn't itself an event.  However, when your subject gets news coverage over several decades, it's far past a not-news situation.  Coverage in a print book from a major publisher is far more important yet for notability: books don't get published quickly, and they're generally the result of extensive editing (why would you do a rush-job on an entire book?), so unless we have reason to doubt this specific book's reliability, we should consider its coverage of this tree to be the rock on which the tree's notability rests.  Please note that this is basically a "don't delete" vote; I suppose this could stand as a separate article, but this kind of thing is generally better covered in the golf course article, although because I'm not that familiar with the situation, I'm not going to give active support or opposition to the merger idea.  Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DThomsen8, et al. And, do not merge.   --71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added it to List of trees, worth reviewing.  It is a notable one, among various individual trees that have historic importance.  By the way, there are a number of trees listed as California Historical Landmarks or on other historic registers.  This one is not, but that doesn't mean it isn't important, because probably the owners would not choose to have it listed (and restrict their private property rights). -- do  ncr  am  11:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Augusta National Golf Club. This tree is not notable independently of the golf club, bout would be valid in a section of that article. Rarkenin (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's too long to be a section without undo balance problems, and anyway the golf course article is already too long and should be broken into sub-articles. -- Green  C  22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no reason to delete this page. The tree's significance may have been relatively small - at least to non-golfers - but it does involve an interesting anecdote about U.S. President. No harm in letting this page exist. Xenxax (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as a separate article about the tree. Is the nominator the least bit familiar with WP:BEFORE?  If not, they should stay away from AfD until they've read and understood it. The Eisenhower Tree is a notable American landmark in the world of golf. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge, with a strong bias towards the former. It's clearly a tree that golfers know about and would ask questions about ("What species was that tree?"... "Who was this Eisenhower character who named it?"... etc.), so it probably deserves its own article. I understand that the article has been created as the result of a recent event, but there seems to be evidence of the tree's former notability. Inevitably the tree has become more notable by its death, but this is true in other cases too. RomanSpa (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This historical tree has coverage in reliable third party sources that back up it's notability past WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Although most of the sources are about the death of the tree, I don't see that this disqualifies it from notability. The removal of a tree from a golf course would not be newsworthy at all if the tree were not already notable. This is why I'd favour Keep.And Introducing... A Leg (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This clearly passes our general notability guideline, I can't see a single substantive policy-based reason for deletion here. I don't really care why the page was created, be it for recent deaths or not, that's completely irrelevant. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.