Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 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 was Delete. WaltonOne 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

List of forests

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Should be replaced with something similiar to Category:State forests in the United States, instead of being a directory of all the forests/woodlands in the world Corpx 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT. Better served as a category. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this list could be clarified by stating what criteria are necessary to put it on the list. United States national and state forests count as established protected areas, for instance.  I don't know if the Black Forest in Germany is a protected area (i.e. in the IUCN database), but it's famous enough.  Keep for now until some criteria are sorted out.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and convert to a Category, and state criteria for addition to the category. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorify  ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Should be in categories per continent and/or country depending on the case.--JForget 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and convert into a category. i said 03:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not so much a matter of list vs. category, but the central problem is that there are no criteria for inclusion in this list. Is this supposed to list every woodland in the world, including my and your backyard or is it a list of protected areas of various status? Right now it is useless. --h-stt !?  10:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorize and Delete This is to broad of a list (or probably even category) to have. It should be broken down into lists and sub-categories such as US National Forests or Large Forests in Montana.I also think thatYamaka122 ... :)   13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also that Elkman is right that if it is kept (or if its divided into other lists) there needs to be criteria for notability and such. Yamaka122 ... :)   13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Categories do not replace lists. Intro can be expanded to explain criteria. Rmhermen 16:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep after defining criteria for inclusion - this would be a useful "world" list for collecting national and perahps state level forest lists in. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Criteira for inclusion can be expanded leading to a maintainable and finite list. If after this the list is still too unwieldy it could be a top level list i.e. a list of lists of forests which is what it already does under some sections (US, Poland etc). Suicidalhamster 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.