Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooktre

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. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Pooktre

AfDs for this article:

Pooktre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

cannot be written from a NPOV view because the primary page author is closely connected to the subject matter; and (by his own admission on the talk page) the method for bending the wood (which is the only real point of interest) is "secret" so cannot be turned into a good article. OTOH, the primary author has shown a respectable amount of Good Faith, as evidenced on the talk page. But it boils down to one thing: without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have litte notability Robinh (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not 100% sure that I followed the instructions properly on the AFD Log. Could someone verify that it's right please? Robinh (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• You initially messed up the capitalization of the page, but you fixed that properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep IAR. Merge useful infos into arborsculpture. Redirect AfD hero (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue is more complicated than I thought. Apparently there is no generally agreed-upon name for the practice of shaping trees. Arborsculpture appears to be associated with a single artist's work and book on the subject, and Pooktre is the method of another single artist. The proper course of action here is to move arborsculpture to a neutral name like Tree Shaping (as MgM suggests), and then merge and redirect the Pooktre article there. AfD hero (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• If a neutral name is used then yes, that would be better. There are other people in the field of shaping trees that would be part of helping if the name is neutral. Blackash (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• I agree, neural term is needed, plus some rewriting to give a historic overview & different methods developed. Rror (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have moved Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping, added in the informations from the Pooktre article, and done some edits. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Hold on I disagree, where is the discussion on the move ? in the afd box of pooktre ? Perhaps a discussion at a afd box on arborsculpture ? or am I missing something ? Reames (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Verifiability is a core principle laid out by the foundation. How do you suggest we can keep this and still meet the rules? WP:IAR is supposed to be applied when following the rules stops us from improving Wikipedia. Adding unverifiable information doesn't improve WP. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Tree shaping (especially bonsai) and Tree trimming should be looked into as alternative less secret topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect and merge any useable information into Arborsculpture (if any). This is not so secret after all and definitely NOT a streak of 'firsts' and in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world'. Follow the second link on the Axel Erlandson article ([1]) - looks familiar? Rror (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Speedy delete

  The basic consensus seems to be there is not much more than a ad. Just Delete.Blackash (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with AfD hero,Mgm and Rror that a neural term is needed and would be better than a deleting.Blackash (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally started this page, so that it could be recorded somewhere in history about the first grown mirror standing on its own roots. It is from this perspective that I have been editing the page.

:::* 1. Without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have little notability

• 2. Not as streaks of firsts
• 3. Not so secret, and Complete isolation from the rest of the world
• 4. Merge useful infos into arborsculpture.

Here is my rebuttal of above points

1. To suggest that this page would have little merit without the tree shaping methods is under rating the value of the historical achievements.

What else is left then? Some guys are shaping trees and roots - the rest is an advertisment but no real content. Many others are also shaping trees. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which leads us to the second point.

2.

• We have the first recorded trees shaped into people trees. Which were displayed at the world Expo 2005. We do have several first either harvested or growing in our garden. Any of the first listed on Pooktre page plus more can be photographed and put up.
• All of Axel N Erlandson's trees except two (which was a chair and ladder) were abstract shaping rather than representational or functional.
• Majority of people who attempt to shape trees initially shape chairs or buildings. This certainly leaves a large area of things that are not grown before.
• This is what I was referring to when I said Pooktre has a large number of firsts.

Some guys are shaping trees into people trees. Is that WP:NOTABLE? I can't find any reliable independent sources. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Axel N Erlandson never published, or told anyone how to shape his trees. Some people have attempted to back engineer how he did them but have not had the success that Axel N Erlandson did.

• "Axel N Erlandson considered his methods "trade secrets."" the quote is from Axel N Erlandson page [[2]]
• "Axel never told anyone much at all about how he accomplished it. He considered that his "trade secret," even refusing to tell my mother or me how it was done as he thought we might somehow give his secret away." Quote from My father "Talked to Trees" by Wilma Erlandson page 4

So this knowledge was lost.

• For the first 10 years of our shaping trees we didn't know of anyone else in the world who did it. This was an advantage because we didn't know it could be done, so we didn't try to back engineer someone else's work. We developed our own techniques.

This is what I was referring to with the line in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world.

How can I WP:VERIFY that? Stating that your method is different, but you won't tell is not very interesting for an article. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

4.

• If you google Arborscuplture and then Pooktre, Pooktre actually rates a little bit higher.
• As there is no consensus that Arborsculpture represents the art-form as a whole. I don't think it's appropriate to merge Pooktre with Arborscuplture. They are two very different techniques with two very different results.

Blackash (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I strike though my points Blackash (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make something notable. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to arborsculpture. The article for pooktre is half an ad and half puffery. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Delete Creator of the page has requested deletion.[3] This may even be a G-7 speedy deletion, although I'm not sure. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I started copy-editing the article following a link to a section (grammar ouchies)... then scrolled up and saw the flag... then read the rest of the article. Not notable. Secret method (the method might have made it worth having even though Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Pure advertisement.sinneed (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect I've just looked at the arborsculpture article and the salient points of this seem to have been transferred. However, people will probably try to find Pooktre, so I feel a redirect might be in order. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not new in the least, and is pure spam. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (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.