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. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre[edit]

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

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

• delete Griseum recreated the Pooktre article by copying and pasting from Tree shaping creating a stub. With the stated out come of removing the Pooktre content from Tree shaping and then getting the Pooktre article deleted. Playing politics

There is a huge discussion going on at Tree shaping and it is locked down by administrator SilkTork, which is why Griseum didn't just remove the content from Tree shaping. I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre and in the original discussion about deleting Pooktre I asked for Speed delete because I realized it didn't meet the Wikipedia criteria. As this new Pooktre page is just duplicate content from Tree shaping it should be redirected back to Tree shaping (I am pretty sure once Griseum reads this he add some more content to the page, to try and save it.) Blackash have a chat 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Rankiri (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and revert to the redirect that was put here by User:Cirt. This is either re-creation of deleted content per the original, very recently closed AfD; or a entirely unjustified content fork. AfD is not really the place for discussions of this sort, and the name "Pooktre" is the name of a product that does not match this content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The first AfD was closed on 14 January 2009. I created this discussion page because the original nomination was incomplete. — Rankiri (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The source of confusion lies in the fact that the original nominator listed it as WP:Articles for deletion/Pooktre and the Log page for March 23 displayed the contents of the first AfD. — Rankiri (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That makes sense. It would still appear to be the re-creation of deleted content, though. I saw a closed AfD with a blue link, followed it, and saw an article similar to what was being discussed at the closed AfD with no AfD notice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rankiri Thank you for fixing the formating. Blackash have a chat 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. — Rankiri (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - On 20 March 2010, User:SilkTork (an admin) opined that an article just about Pooktre seemed appropriate. Having researched on-line refs about this subject over the last couple months, I agreed and also thought the creation of such an article could possibly help unplug the constipated debate happening at Talk:Tree shaping. Removing mention of Pooktre methods from the tree shaping article wouldn't be inappropriate; I haven't and wouldn't advocate that. NB - I didn’t realize the Pooktre article had been deleted in January 2010 – I thought it was more like 6 months ago. If I had I would have waited or refrained entirely. Thanks. --Griseum (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Griseum again you are shading the truth Quotes from User:SilkTork

1. "I have said that I think that a case can be made for having an article on Arborsculpture/Richard Reames, and the same I feel is true of Pooktre; though at this point it might be more helpful to everyone concerned if material and information on Reames and on Pooktre were dealt with and built up in this article before being split out into standalone article. " SilkTork *YES! 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC) comment buried here
2. "I still feel that an article could be written on both Pooktre and Richard Reames. The articles would need to be neutral and well sourced, and have to withstand a challenge to their notability. It's certainly doable. Though my recommendation is that this article is first built, and then those articles can be broken off from this one in WP:Summary style if people so wish. I do not, however, wish to get involved in the creating of those articles! SilkTork *YES! 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC) search stub

• Both times I stated it would be better to work on the Tree shaping article rather than create new pages. Blackash have a chat 23:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not across the debate at tree shaping but I'm not sure it's relevant - there are sufficient sources establishing notability and sufficient content to found a stand-alone article on pooktre. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This keeps coming up and seems to be vexatious promotion of a trade name, contrary to WP:COI. Delete as improper content fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Colonel Warden please note that I asked for this to be deleted and I am a co-founder of Pooktre, we stated on the Tree shaping that there should not be a Pooktre page. Griseum created the page for their own agenda Blackash have a chat 21:23, 24 March 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.