Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Reforestation

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Reforestation

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

Urban Reforestation is not a movement per se. Reforestation, both urban and rural, occurs as part of the environmental and conservation movement but it cannot be seen as separate to the environmental movement. The article is mainly about Australia. Google Scholar is bereft of info about it. The article appears to be POV-pushing by a SPA. Emilybbrodie (talk · contribs), the creator of the article which was her only edit, is the director of Urban Reforestation organisation. A link to their website is used in the article as a ref so we have a case of WP:COI as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 08:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep I agree about the conflict of interest of the article originator Emilybbrodie (talk · contribs). But the originator was only responsible for the first edit; the article has been edited by a number of authors since then and the article is no longer largely her work. As a sampling of sources contributing toward notability, I found

All of these look like secondary references and all go in depth about urban reforestation and it's effects. All except possibly source 4 look reliable; I don't know the reliability of the TimesLedger. The presence of multiple reliable secondary sources suggests that urban reforestation is a notable concept and it seems notable in countries other than Australia. Given the notability and the fact that non-neutral POV problems in the article are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE), I recommend keeping the article. Mark viking (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the poor state of the article in terms of coverage and accuracy, and that we already have a reforestation article we should get rid of it and start again. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reforestation: makes the most sense to me. Seems like there's enough info on the subject to become part of the bigger article. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge. Most of it is a vehicle for the Urban Reforestation organisation mentioned on the page. There is room for an article on urban reforestation but it would be nothing like this article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its an interesting topic but this article is not good. I have no idea what it refers specifically to. Its not really a movement, just a concept. A better article may emerge after a split from reforestation, Sustainable Urbanism or other articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the article to provide a more balanced viewpoint and to include some of the reliable sources I quoted above. It is still but a stub, but is hopefully a better base upon which to expand the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of Mark viking's changes. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Urban Reforestation"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Now granted, amongst various college degrees I have one in Forestry too, but never in our debates was "Urban" reforestation a topic. It's a lovely concept I suppose, but by definition the development inherent in an Urban environment precludes the addition of an overwhelming forested setting as well (Rivendell in real life the world ain't - we don't live in trees). Sure, we implement green ways, parks, and other of nature's inclusions. But I don't ever recall an Urban development plan that included reforesting the area. Not to say it doesn't exist on paper somewhere (save the trees!), just doesn't sound real practical. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge with Urban forestry. This is a stub article on an important, legitimate topic. Though it seems like an oxymoron, urban reforestation is an important 'movement' across the world, related today also to mitigating effects of urban heat islands on global climate change. There is now a scientific journal on Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. The United States Forest Service has an urban forestry unit. There are many other examples of why this is a notable topic. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urban forest, Urban forestry, reforestation, urban reforestation. Seem to have four different articles with a lot of the same information in them. Dream Focus 20:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with any science, there are important distinctions between the resource and the profession and resource management practices that have developed in relation to that resource. E.g. heart & heart surgeon. Reforestation (also reafforestation), is a very broad term applied to every and any habitat. Urban reforestation presents particular challenges and rewards. Globally, urban heat islands, with temperatures significantly higher than surrounding areas, are an important, climate-change related phenomenon... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, as there are things I include in random musings that do not necessarily reflect the views of management...but there are a Large number of people out there - scientists and otherwise - who firmly believe there is no foundation to the theory/theories of Global Warming & climate-change. Hence, the ideas of these different aspects of a similar scientific nature/focus are by no means acknowledged by the entire community. So though we separate them here by topic because there is "identifiable" difference when considered by some, we cannot say that there is separation when considered by all. Great ideas and topics; gives a few to reflect on them - thank you DASonnenfeld. I'm gonna avoid discussing management, because that's a dollars and sense business, and how they do things is either sustained yield or not Яεñ99 (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Яεñ99 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Яεñ99 makes an important point: there is the fundamental resource, in this case urban forest (as strange as that may sound or seem), and various perspectives in relation to it. Forestry and Reforestation both imply intentional human management of, or intervention in relation to, the resource, though potentially for various aims. (They are the counterpoint or maybe antidote to Deforestation, also the result of human action on the resource.) The proposed action here, deleting the article on Urban Reforestation, takes the view that there is insufficient basis for a separate article on that topic. My point is that there is enough happening in that area (e.g. various Million Trees programs) in enough significant places around the world -- as diverse as New York City, Shanghai and Denver, to name a few -- that it is an important topic. Urban heat islands (all that asphalt, cement and steel retains an incredible amount of solar energy) are an indisputable phenomenon, whether or not you want to link them to global climate change. Urban reforestation seems to be a viable approach for addressing this. It may be possible to successfully merge Urban Reforestation with Urban forestry, but in my view it would be a mistake to delete the former altogether. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Urban reforestration is popular in Philadelphia and other cities and is a worthy separate article. Enough here documented to keep and improve.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sufficiently convinced by explanation(s) and prior hx that the topic is of importance to debate, provision of information, and for use in an encyclopedic environment for inclusion. The topic is deeply interwoven in the philosophies of many contemporary ideas of resource protection, development, and management. Яεñ99 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (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.