Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Tree

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

No conceivable notability, but it passed AfC nonetheless. Of all the articles I've screened, this is perhaps the least justifiable. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might be best served by redirecting it to Martinsville,_New_Jersey#Points_of_interest, where it's already summed up fairly well as it is. I'll try to find sources, but so far it's almost solely the type that wouldn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/redirect. I see where it's covered in three book sources, but what sort of pushes this to a weak keep for me is that this landmark has been the inspiration for an upcoming film that has received some coverage. If it does redirect, it should be with history so we can un-redirect it if/when the movie gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to a previous AfD about the same topic. See also User:Valoem/The Devil's Tree. —rybec 06:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per coverage in existing article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Tree is involved with some notability. Additional citation are on my user page which I can restore if the article is kept. Valoem ^talk 14:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I despise articles of this type, the tree has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about the tree. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2014 (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.