Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 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 delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Tree

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

Extremely minor local legend, popularized by a single website and it's publoishing arm, with very minor mentions in local press. No attempt to demonstrate any notability outside of this extremely limited geographic area via multiple, reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I failed to find enough reliable coverage for this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content to Martinsville, New Jersey, then, if you don't think it deserves a standalone article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: But if this really does pan out, we might consider the notability threshold met. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep including the sources given on the article itself, I find New Jersey Curiosities (linked to WNJ), Coriander (inclusion in a fictional book), Jersey Journal (ha Mr. Case behind the lens) of course the non reliable fansite No. 1 ,2 and 3 and many more, and dozens of Weird NJ publications, and there is upon further searching (and potential expansion) quite a back story for a "Devil's tree". Of course, we would need some resource to claim this connection, but its definitely interesting, and as Daniel brought up, the Travel channel coverage in my opinion, would be great for the article, but it already merits one. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical of many rumor/legend/cool story articles that don't have any notability outside of local coverage and seem to function as a playground for Steven King wannabes. There are a number of other articles sourced entirely to Weird NJ (my favorite, Shades Of Death Road) need to be evaluated for adherence to WP:GNG as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm sorry, were we allowed to elect to omit a reliable source? WNJ is a highly publicized, highly printed, read-by-many (even outside of NJ) publication. I understand dos RS, and in this case we have usage in a fiction book, a local magazine, another book (although linked to WNJ) and potential coverage (ah... seeing into the future can be dangerous...) by a major cable network. Sidenote, even though a New Jerseyian, I feel in no way obligated to keep this from some biased standpoint - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird NJ admits to an editorial process consisting of "interviews with people we meet along the road who we feel have a story to tell, and stories sent in by subscribers telling their own Weird experience living in New Jersey." Not to say it isn't entertaining and fun, but it's definitely at odds with the goal of creating a serious encyclopedia that cautions us to avoid sources that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Aside from Weird NJ, we need multiple reliable sources that discuss "The Devil's Tree" to demonstrate notability that justifies it having its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess this is sort of turning into a meta-source discussion, but I don't think that it is our un-authoritative decision to make, it is information printed in a reliable source, just like any restaurant with a review in the New York Times (albeit that the paper must fulfill this restaurant requirement) or most tenured University professors fully meet the requirements for inclusion. I'm sure any local legend ie. the Jersey Devil, which is admittedly covered 100-fold, began with hearsay like this. I'm not saying that this will ever reach that legendary status, but it is our duty to report what others have said, and not to decide what constitutes encyclopedic value. This topic is covered by WNJ and Weird US, Brief mention by Rutgers Investigation team, a NJ paper, another NJ book of related topics, fictional book, tons of fansites.. ha, I'm good on this for now. Summary, in my opinion, enough RS and coverage, and we can only report from reliable sources, not supposed to put ourselves between that. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are collecting folklore, talking to people you meet is how you do it. The rumors are the significant facts. I also wouldn't characterize all their reporting the way Moran and Sceurman do (or did ... I think they wrote that some time ago). I've noticed a fair amount of their recent issues have included work by other people who seem to have a more journalistic background, and it shows ... the story which was the major original source for Action Park cited its own sources extensively.

While I would like more sourcing too (I personally feel the two mentions in other sources (the Star-Ledger is more or less New Jersey's newspaper of record, which to me gives it more heft than the Courier-News, which is more local) are non-trivial, but I do see how opinions can vary), but I don't generally quarrel with Weird NJ's data collection methods, which aren't really that different from what I learned in a graduate-level folklore class (Interpretation of folklore, on the other hand, is best left to professionals). Just because that wouldn't be acceptable for a Wikipedia article doesn't mean it wouldn't be acceptable for a source (see this AfD for the hilarity that ensues when someone does decide Wikipedia policy covers sources as much as our own articles). Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2010 (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.