Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorian Firewood


 * 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 Merge. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Victorian Firewood

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod tag placed by User:Scientizzle was contested and therefore listed here. The topic may be worth an article but this one is blatant soapboxing and does not represent a neutral point of view. Mattinbgn/talk 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I cited indisciminate information for the prod as the article is highly specific to the use of one product (firewood) in one region (Victoria) of one country (Australia). Articles on British Ketchup or a Card games played in Atlanta would be similar examples of information I'd consider indisciminate because they're too limited in scope. Rather, as I suggested at Talk:Victorian Firewood, the useful information within this article could be split amongt articles such as wood fuel (currently source-less and lacking any Australia-specific information), Eucalyptus camaldulensis (which lacks detailed info on its deforestation & use as firewood) & deforestation (which lacks a section on Australia), for example. POV prose can be fixed, but nothing will change the fact that this article is far too narrow a topic, existing as an amalgamation of information that would be more appropirate & useful in other articles. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is written as an essay where the facts have been selected to fit a particular POV. Take away the POV and nothing else exists.  Merging the POV offending statements into other articles doesn't make them any less POV unless some attempt is made to balance them.  Harvesting River red gum timber may not be a good thing but residents of Koondrook, Mathoura and Gunbower would likely have a different opinion. --Mattinbgn/talk 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite agree about the POV in the text. I was just trying to convince the article's author to move the modest amount of sourced content into more relevant articles (minus the POV, of course). Hell, if we don't hear from, I'll do it myself. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Scientizzle. His proposal makes a lot of sense. Capitalistroadster 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above suggestions. Possibly there is a need for Domestic heating in Australia but I doubt it! Garrie 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Scientizzle. Lankiveil 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
 * All content has been merged to the above articles and this page now redirects to Wood fuel. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:25, 20 April 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.
 * 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.