Contesting proposed deletion. The original proposed deletion said:
This is a rather well-written, well-sourced article, but it's about the extraordinarily (and oddly) specific topic of firewood use in one region of one country...That seems like a WP:NOT violation, as indisciminate information.
This article, like many wikipedia articles, is on a specific topoic. But it is not indiscriminate. For example, an article on a random Animal adoption NGO in Oregon Project POOCH has a website which isn't considered indiscriminate.
This page is about one of the major uses of timber products accross Australia's South East (specifically Victoria). The use of firewood in Victoria is a significant one, which warrents entry into wikipedia. It's an issue which a great deal of study has been done, and therefore there is a great deal of 'human knowledge' on this issue.
If you disagree with the takedown of the deletion notice, please explain exactly what you mean by it being indiscriminate information. It doesn't seem to be echoed in the WP:NOT page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidjdh (talk • contribs).
- The {{prod}} I placed last night was one of the last things I did before I signed off last night. I was serious when I wrote that this is a generally well-written & well-sourced article. After thinking about it overnight, I logged back on to remove my own proposed deletion & perhaps discuss useful merger of the contained information rather than keeping (or deleting) this separate article.
- My concerns with the current article are:
- It's highly specific to the use of one product (firewood) in one region (Victoria) of one country (Australia). While there's clearly been some attention from outside sources on this phenomenon, it strikes me as something of a content fork. Much of this information would be considerably more useful within the wood fuel article, which currently discusses only European & American firewood use, especially considering that article lacks the quality sourcing that this one provides.
- Some of the content is seems mildly POV, in my opinion, seemingly arguing against the use of red gum wood. There's good information there that could be presented slightly more neutrally in articles on wood fuel, Eucalyptus camaldulensis (which lacks detailed info on its deforestation & use as firewood) & deforestation (which lacks a section on Australia), for example.
- "Victorian firewood" as a title, search term, & general subject seems to me like an odd place to look for information and may, in a practical sense, be too "hidden" of a location from which to most effectively transmit what you've gathered. As I stated above, almost the entirety of this article could be added to other articles that are currently lacking sufficient information.
- Generally, I think the information presented in this article is of good quality and I would be glad to assist in the merger of the containted information. Send me a message on my talk page... Cheers! — Scientizzle 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me think about this for a few days and get back to you.
Thanks for your comments.
Davidjdh 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Began merging to wood fuel - should I redirect there? Davidjdh 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)