Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species forest


 * 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. I'm sorry Rstafursky but there's a clear consensus here that this is a non-notable neologism. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's ok Ron. Thanks for your work to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. Rstafursky (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Species forest

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to be an attempt to promote a neologism. Only instances of this term outside this article are similar attempts in comment threads and personal webpages. Not used in any scholarly biological papers that I can locate. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * delete I couldn't find sources, either. I think this is more of a WP:SOAP issue than anything, neologism or not. Links to Occupy and Mother Earth seem to support that. Having said that, the article still has problems. Concur with the neologism, except I can't find anybody using that term at all... so, I contend that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH come into play. Roodog2k (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The one positive thing to come out of this article is that all of the partial matches of the phrase "multi-species forest" led me to discover that we didn't have an article on monodominant forests. However, nothing scholarly came up.  This is unsurprising, as all of the article creator's lengthy arguments on Talk:species forest amount to arguing that Wikipedia should have an article on this not because it is a properly documented and established concept in the world of biological science, which it clearly isn't from those arguments alone, but because by some magical and unspecified means it will become encyclopaedic.  But hey!  We got an article on some actual science out of it.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * comment: Yup, the commentary on the talk page pretty much sounds like WP:SOAP, WP:OR. Roodog2k (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No, SPECIES FOREST has nothing to do with SPECIES LIST FOREST. They may seem to be similar because that is my profession and I am an expert on the natural landscape and in creating and protection of forests. In the case of Species List Forest of conway, MA it is a real place owned entirely by a non-profit conservation organization and Wikipedia:Species List Forest should never have been deleted. Wikipedia:Natural landscape was attacked also and so a claim that I am some sort of troll is false. If User:Yunshui is to like my history s/he should list it all. I have contributed and contributed well. I once again tell you that User:Yunshui seems to not understand environmental language seems to believe that there is some hidden agenda. But it only seems to be the case. I have given references on Species forest TALK to a variety of species forest types. Like Species forest, they are used, but not a lot, because there are not many conservationist who deal with healthy forest descriptions. Usually working forest get all the attention and have the most obscure terminology. Native species forest is one of many species forest such terms which I have referenced. I am not sure of User:Yunshui's other claims, because I do not do many submissions on Wikipedia and have difficulty deciphering the complaint codes. How can it be neologism if the term is clearly found in Google and is totally understandable by environmentalists of my profession? It is a well used phrase and not an acronym or other single word. There may be ambiguity for some editors not skilled in the natural sciences, and that misunderstanding I regret. That is why it is a stub and that is shy it will be made made less ambiguous. Please do not delete.Rstafursky (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is a notable concept there should be reliable references to attest to that fact. Also, "Species List Forest of Conway, MA" may (or may not) be an actual place but that does not mean that Species forest is a valid article under Wikipedia notability guidelines. If it is notable an article for "Species List Forest of Conway, MA" is valid. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and RooDog2k. Also, if it were to be a definition it would not justify an article per WP:DICDEF. Poor quality articles such as this are doing WP disservice. Please, lets get some sort of peer review in place to stop this stort of rubbish from turning up in article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit over-dramatic, no? - Running On Brains (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Don't you want WP to improve the quality of its contents? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what we're doing now? Roodog2k (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No references, non-notable neologism. - Running On Brains (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable WP:NEO. -- 202.124.72.221 (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty clear now that Wikipedia editors believe that I coined the term SPECIES FOREST and that they believe that there is a good need for such a term. Committee editor Yunshui has confirmed my own Google searches that most, if not all discussion using the term SPECIES FOREST originates from my comments on social networks. This may be true, although I never imagined that such a useful environmental and ecological term had heretofore been overlooked for it has been used, but not perhaps in a meaningful way. Although SPECIES FOREST origins my be foggy it is crystal clear form your contributions to this Wikipedia delete page that I am the first ever to define SPECIES FOREST. I, as a conservationist, have been up to the task by defining it in the best way, the correct way and the modern way, if you will. My sole interest in these things is to improve the natural landscape for the Earth and for us all. Words are everything. If the natural science does not have its own correct definitions in its arsenal then natural landscape suffers. In the past the forests of the world were framed in terms of resources their extraction of which does harm to the forest. Even term such as WILDLIFE AREA implies that megafauna are the species of interest to hunters. The term BIODIVERSITY likewise for some ecologist must necessarily be determine by people. SPECIES FOREST is none of these because this term is not anthropomorphic in any way. Therefore, even if this committee does not see a need to put SPECIES FOREST into Wikipedia and condemns to oblivion such a useful and nature loving expression I now define it here for perhaps the last Wiki time. "A species forest is a forest of, by and for all nonhuman species; it is a place in the natural landscape occupied by all its existing and recently extant plant, animal, fungal, and microbial organisms." Go now back to your homes. Take a walk after supper. Breath the air, smell the smells and off in the distance you may see a species forest "its head sticking out of a low flying cloud." Or you may never see one in you entire lifetime. . . but you have to look. Rstafursky (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This unsourced definition is nonsense: of course a forest is occupied by species (what else?). And what on earth does "existing and recently extant" mean? WP:BOLLOCKS, I'm afraid. -- 202.124.72.138 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – as a neologism that isn't able to be sourced, per WP:NEO. Sorry, but the term isn't in wide use whatsoever and there are apparently no reliable sources about the term. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:56, 11 June 2012 (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.