Deletion of Eisenhower Tree

Comment: The coverage in sources including many respectable newspapers indicates notability and so it clearly passes . There appears to be no reason to delete. There are plenty of trees on Wikipedia; for example the Anne Frank tree has a long-ish article and this tree seems just as notable. Suspect some  is at play here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: This clearly passes our |general notability guideline, I can't see a single substantive policy-based reason for deletion here. I don't really care why the page was created, be it for recent deaths or not, that's completely irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Before another similar article, or Godwin, gets mentioned again, allow me to say ther stuff exists|OSE is never a valid argument
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: This historical tree has coverage in reliable third party sources that back up it's notability past 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: obviously meets . It is not a recent ''event'' but an ''object'', as such  and related guidelines do not apply. In any case the provided sources clearly explain that the tree was notable in the previous decades
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I'm generally in favor of deleting news-y event articles, but as Cyclopia notes, this isn't about an event (we can probably all agree that a Death of the Eisenhower Tree would be an absurd article). Events tend to have pretty ephemeral impact, but in this case, we're talking about a tree that made headlines throughout a 50-year or so period. While I recognize that this constitutes an  appeal, I still can't help noting that we have articles on people less notable than this tree. It looks like at least some of the editors advocating deletion are just carrying on a dispute from the Deaths in 2014 talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: In the 100+ years of its existence, not once has this tree had enough information outside of trivial golf feats performed by others. The article is a copy and paste job of a subsection of Augusta National Golf Club and only exists to justify its inclusion at Deaths in 2014. The creator insists Wiki Golf is going to provide more, but based off the years of it not having its own article, and whatever else they could rustle up just be more trivial feats, I feel it's fine as a subsection. Article is a clear cut example of , and should be redirected back to the golf park article, hence me also supporting a '''Merge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: There are plenty of sources in the article, and the subject passes the |GNG. Many of the arguments for deletion appear to think that a tree can't be notable, but I don't see why trees would be an exemption to the GNG aside from 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Fails .  "Significant sources" in this case appears to be really a case of multiple media outlets rushing like lemmings to parrot the same story on their website.  Show me something from earlier than two or three days ago and I'll believe that there is significant coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)