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. Deville (Talk) 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of life garden

[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable garden, unreferenced, POV article. Fails WP:VER, WP:N, WP:POV andy (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Pikake Botanical Gardens for the same reason.

Turns out to be spam, too. The author admits on the talk page of another article about a garden (also at AfD) that he created it as an advert for his company - "We are a relatively new botanical Garden and are having trouble creating a presence that people can find. I had hoped that getting listed in wikipedia would help." His company website lists the "Tree of life garden" and "Pikake Botanical Gardens" as well - see the pages on Botanical Gardens and Spiritual Gardens. andy (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Im noticing that the one article in paticular only seems to have references that dont even mention the garden, specifically another wikipedia article. Unless suitable secondary sources are found its impossible to know if these are notable. Can these be found though? As always i suggest bits and pieces of the info can be merged and redirect to Botanical Garden. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tree of life garden: delete. None of the references are valid. No relevant results on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar. Numerous WP:OR and POV issues: "the first of its kind to ever be built", "In entering the dome, one in effect becomes one with Yaweh", "when visitors engage in 'Ohm' chants, the effect is overwhelming" and so on. — Rankiri (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to Tree of life garden per andy. Pmlin editor 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contested PROD is not a reason for deletion. The article is not unreferenced, but I concede it is poorly referenced. This is easily fixed; there are links within the referenced Yesod, . There is assertion without evidence (other than Rankiri's), that it is non-notable. There is assertion of PoV without evidence (with the notable exception of Rankiri. This also is fixable). "Admits" is entirely the wrong language to use; Andyjsmith is mistaken to think proof of the author's intentions is proof of WP:PROMOTION. Please show evidence that the article content itself does not "maintain a neutral point of view" or contains "overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles". The author's motivations are entirely separate from the content of the article. That the business would benefit from the garden's inclusion on WP is not our concern, only the content of the article. Note promotion in WP:DELETION only covers "Advertising or other spam without relevant content". Note also that WP:PROMOTION is largely a rehash of other rules in the context of self-authorship, and therefore alleging both self-promo and PoV is redundant. I concede that there is a certain degree of enthusiasm for the subject, but that is easily cleaned up. Now, this is how you show evidence that needs to be cleaned up in the article. This is how I would phrase it on the Talk page discussion: in the phrase "...in the center of the patio in Hebrew is the Shema Yisrael, the password given to Abraham explaining that God's creation..." 'explaining' is an example of PoV. It puts the reader in the shoes of someone who has a faith-based belief in the Shema Yisrael and the beliefs surrounding it, which is an uncomfortable position for someone who doesn't. I dispute Rankiri's assertion that "the first of its kind to ever be built" is PoV. It is a statement of truth, that has verifiability problems because it asserts a negative, namely, "no such garden has ever been built before"; it is not a 'best burger ever' slogan which hides behind an unquantifiable aesthetic. Anarchangel (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you're for or against the nomination, or simply delivering a lecture on how these things should properly be done. In any case your arguments are contrarian and largely spurious:

"Contested prod" is not intended to be an argument for deletion, it's a (frequently used) explanation of why the article is at AfD rather than being prodded and a note to other editors that the case may not be clear cut;

The article is unreferenced in any meaningful sense because there is only one reference which does not directly address the subject of the article;

What on earth has the linked article Yesod go to do with it? The article at AfD is about a garden, not the Kabbalah;

How is the fact that lack of notability is asserted rather than proven an argument against the deletion of the article, especially as you say that another editor has in fact found evidence (or rather the lack of it)? Does it or does it not fall under WP:N?

Details of a POV assertion aren't necessary because they're obvious to anyone who reads the article, and if not then this statement can be challenged. I note that you have not done so;

I don't claim that the article has "overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles". What makes you think I said it did?

Proof of the author's promotional intentions isn't proof per se that the article is promotional but it's strongly indicative. If the author thinks it's promotional (which he does) who are we to argue otherwise?

and so on and so on...

If you think the article can be fixed please do so. andy (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feldmoves (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)How is it possible to add external references to an article about something that has never existed before. This is not a commercial venture. This is a spiritual or religious garden. Those that do visit it go there because they are seeking a higher understanding of their connection to their god. The "Tree of Life" comes from the Kabala. Are there any Kabala experts on your staff? They would be the only ones remotely qualified to make a judgment call on this article. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it is not valid.[reply]

Understanding or being an expert on a topic is not necessary to make a call on an AFD. What is important is wether the topic meats the encycolpedia guidlines set out (notability being key). Being an expert though can help in improoving the article. An AFD discussion includes editors from all over wikipedia and not solely just experts in a field various perspectives are included in these discussions. As for external links its better to direct those questions to the help desk or the article talk page.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also the article is not about the Kabbalah. It's about a garden. Under WP rules notability has to be provable. No references = no proof of notability. andy (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2009 (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.