Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congress Oak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tree. The article does not assert the significance of the tree, and no proper Google hits except WP and mirrors. The prod was removed without comment, so it ends up here. Robin Johnson 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. --Soumyasch 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Treecruft! Well, that's different, anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, floracruft per Mr. Blind. I'm not seeing anything notable about the tree, other than "it's nice". Kuru talk 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable tree. JIP | Talk 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn Bucketsofg 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, treecruft. Totally non-notable and unverifiable, most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC) --Terence Ong 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Appears to be notable in Poland, per the Polish Wikipedia article. Actually, I can't read Polish, so I'm not sure how notable the article claims the tree to be. --Elkman - (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to www.poltran.com, it translates to roughly the same text, with roughly the same level of notability assertions: "nikt". Kuru talk 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite sucky stubs in both Polish and English, the tree is well known in Poland. I think it's reckoned to be the oldest tree in Europe. (I had my picture taken under it, it must be important for something, I just don't remember offhand.) ProhibitOnions 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? Can you find any other information on this tree? It looks like the author of this page created a dozen or so articles for other trees - each time just giving some random stats about it. Can you shed any light on this? Kuru talk 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's proving quite hard to research (including in Polish sources), and it looks like the article might be toast soon. If I can't find it in a book or other source I'll change my vote to delete because of verifiability. ProhibitOnions 20:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All the Google results for "oldest tree in europe" seem to point to a yew in Perthshire, at least on the first few pages. Someone has edited the article to say this tree is 400 years old. I'm not a treeologist, but I'm not sure that's a particularly notable age for an oak. Robin Johnson 11:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? Can you find any other information on this tree? It looks like the author of this page created a dozen or so articles for other trees - each time just giving some random stats about it. Can you shed any light on this? Kuru talk 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Arbusto 07:02, 25 March 2006 (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.