Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of old growth forests

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 of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a list of one and already well covered by a catagory."old growth" is a bit subjective anyway. and what forests are supposed to go here, just US ones or others too? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One item does not a list make. Royboycrashfan 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and expand: From old growth forest, it seems like there is kind of a definition for this. There's Category:Old growth forests from which to build a real list. (Not real sure why it wasn't done at creation time...) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Steady Keep - I expanded it to be an actual listMadCow257 03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per MadCow257. --Z.Spy 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now that it's proper list. Eivind 04:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as list of notable subjects. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless sourced. Do we have reliable sources that say these forests are "old growth"? That might lessen the reasonable concern about subjectivity. (I'm saying "weak" because I'm inclined to give lists more than 5 days to develop sources.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Expand/Move Should be moved to Old Growth Forests and expanded to include a definition and description of the traits that define an old growth forest.--Vercalos 07:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper capitalization of the above suggestion would make this Old growth forests. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but must have a definition and link to Old growth forest. --CrypticBacon 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! CrypticBacon is right about Old growth forest (no "s"). The fact that this article already existed shows how important it is to get capitalization and plurality (or lack thereof) correct in article titles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listmania. That's what we have cats for. As a sidenote, Russia has the largest number of such forests in the world. The author didn't include even the Virgin Komi Forests here. We don't need such silly lists, sorry. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ghirlandajo. The category does the listing automatically. Fagstein 20:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jim62sch 20:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Old growth forest, which has plenty of room for this information. dbtfz^talk 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ghirlandajo, no added value over the category. Sandstein 10:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Old growth forest per Dbtfz. Ewlyahoocom 11:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, verifiable and potentially useful.-Colin Kimbrell 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified. Not opposed to a merge. Stifle 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep existence of category does not make a similar list useless. Dsmdgold 05:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kappa 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to old growth forest. -- infinity0 16:51, 9 March 2006 (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.