Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery tree of Arizona


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mystery tree of Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:FAILN and WP:SPIP BeIsKr (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I found nothing at Google, news, scholar, free images, or books. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The two sources already in the article are very in-depth are are independent of the topic, thus satisfying WP:GNG (thus WP:FAILN being irrelevant) and is is not a case of WP:SPIP as it's an inanimate object that is incapable of promoting itself and writing a Wikipedia article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Bearian of not being able to find anything scholarly about this tree. Not sure if it is even named Mystery Tree of Arizona. The two sources in the article's do not determine WP:GNG being that one is just a personal blog post while the other is a local news article (if stories that appear on the local news are always notable for Wikipedia, we would have articles on every single crime, accident, local events, etc. that has happened in the world). The tree may be popular among local residents, but not the rest of the world and from looking at the contributions of the creator, there is evidence of SPA and WP:SPIP. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No this is not some "personal blog" but a magazine that seems religious based. As long as there is editorial control over its content and independent of the source as that source is, it passes WP:Reliable Sources.  The KNXV-TV report is not about a crime or accident.  Apples and oranges.  Attacks on the article creator is simply ad hominem. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a magazine that like many online magazines and news sites hosts blogs. You're splitting hairs.  And how are attacks on the article creator ad hominem if it truly is a WP:SPA?  Read the link on the policy before you respond.  It's a valid form of criticism. BeIsKr (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I've seen this particular tree while driving on the interstate. It's true, the locals decorate it for Christmas and the Fourth of July. After that, it's hardly noteworthy. It really is just a lone tree in the middle of a plain. Nothing more than that. I have never heard it being called a "mystery tree". Robby The Penguin   (talk)   (contribs)  02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Local notability is not general notability. Lots of Category:Individual trees are notable for different reasons, but not this one. Rkitko (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2012 (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.