Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical 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 keep. So Why 15:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical forest

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems like tropical forest itself is not defined as a biome, a more accurate term would be tropical rainforest. The article, created in 2004, still is of low quality and seems to be a bad duplicate of tropical rainforest. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me confused. Point by point:

Tropical forest is as well defined as forest, rainforest, savanna or any other vegetation type. Read those articles, or any other on a vegetation type and you will see that the problem isn't lack of definition. It's that there are literally hundreds of definitions. The same is true of tropical forest, which is what the references in this article note. The various schemes should indeed be teased out more, but this is a srart class article, so thats a feature, not reason for deletion.

The article wasn't created in 2004. It was effectively created today. It has been a redirect for the past 12 years, not an article. That redirect, to tropical rainforedt, is obviously wrong, since nearly of tropical forests are not rainforests. It might just as well redirect to savanna or mangrove.

it is not in any possible sense a duplicate of tropical rainforest. The article notes that explicitely. Tropical rainforests are only 60% of tropical forests. You might just as well say that tropical rainforest is just a duplicate of forest.

it seems very odd to nominate New article for deletion within an hour of creation, bSed on content and history but apparently not have read it or looked at the history. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commentTropical rainforests are warm and moist; while temperate rainforests are cool. Only a small percentage of the tropical forests are rainforests.Tropical forests are both the fearsome Jungle of our fantasy and the fertile Eden of our myth. They are the central nervous system of our planet—a hotbed of evolution, life and diversity. Tropical rainforests are home to over half the world's species, all squeezed into a narrow strip of equatorial land. BetterSmile:D 05:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep: I strongly support this article and have thought for a long time that it is much needed: especially in order to help navigate the 'lexicological minefield' concerning these biomes. I agree with BetterSmile's sentiments and that the word "tropical rainforest" is overused; perhaps inevitably, there appear to be contrasting opinions on this and other terms. Mark Marathon and I have been debating what constitutes a "tropical rainforest" on my talk page. My only hesitation here is that "tropical forest" somewhat duplicates Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests (for which this used to be a forwarding page) and Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests. Personally, I am not a great fan of and the Global 200 scheme and, if I have understood correctly, neither is Mark. There might be an argument to combine all 3 pages, but I am sure fans of Global 200 would disagree! In my opinion, the term tropical forest is especially useful because (i) it is usefully generic, mitigating some of the issues that distinguish sub-types such as rainforest, seasonal tropical forest, tropical cloudforest, dry tropical forest, etc. and the ecotones between them; (ii) it is helpful shorthand for describing the habitat of species that occur in more than one of the latter and (iii) it is a super-set of - and certainly not synonymous with - "tropical rainforest", so they cannot be combined. Mark tells me that many Australians would disagree with "tropical rainforest" applying strictly only to the Af zone of the Koppen classification, but such aspects could be explored appropriately on this page. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:15, 14 and 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would recommend moving the content of tropical rainforest#Types of tropical forest to this page ASAP. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this debate has been going-on for several years - see: Talk:Tropical_and_subtropical_moist_broadleaf_forests Roy Bateman (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, and move some material from Tropical rainforest into it. As noted, the current setup is somewhat like putting all the genus information into a species page - rainforest is only one type of tropical forest biome, and an overview placed at the higher category would be desirable. Discussion linked immediately above makes similar points. Let's take this as an opportunity to implement them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (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.