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. Poorly-attended AfD that could be closed N/C, but we have sources identified that counter the issues raised int he delete !vote, which itself acknowledges it's a notable concept. Whether this should be merged following sourcing can be discussed editorially. StarMississippi00:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, written to subtly promote "Certified Arborists" and demote mere "ordinary" arborists. Not notable enough on its own to warrant an article. If anything from this could be kept, it should be merged with either the ISA article or the arborist article. Whilst this is heading into G11 territory, it isn't quite there. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Miller, Hauer & Werner 2015, pp. 255–256 discusses this subject, and indeed explains the whys and wherefores of certification and that yes, certified arborists are different to uncertified ones. Konijnendijk & Randrup 2005, p. 470 covers this subject, too. Then there are lots of little facts like the U.S. cities survey with respect to how many employed certified arborists, reported in footnote 33 of doi:10.4324/9781003054672-29. Clearly, there are sources to be had; and everything is fixable with the move and editing tools. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Miller, Robert W.; Hauer, Richard J.; Werner, Les P. (2015). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces (3rd ed.). Waveland Press. ISBN9781478629498.
Konijnendijk, Cecil C.; Randrup, Thomas B. (2005). "Urban Forestry Education". In Konijnendijk, Cecil C.; Nilsson, Kjell; Randrup, Thomas B.; Schipperijn, Jasper (eds.). Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN9783540276845.
I have only searched quickly however this research doi:10.1080/03071375.2016.1221178 shows an example of finding whether a CA makes a difference. This shows that the subject of CAs is of interest. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. The current article appears unaware that the world extends beyond the US. The article would avoid the accusation of being promotional if it described the situation more widely. For example, in the UK, a tree surgeon isn't obliged to have any particular qualifications, and the title "certified arborist" has no particular meaning and is not protected - anyone could call themselves this. But the concept exists, in that a good tree surgeon is likely to have qualifications from the National Proficiency Tests Council. If the article is to be restricted to US certification, then it should be moved to "Certified Arborist (US)" to avoid confusion with parallel articles covering Australia, the UK, NZ etc. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really, what needs to be done is improving the article, because there appears to be a notable concept that could be covered under the title "Certified Arborist". But this ain't it, chief. In the current state, it merely promotes the ISA and is fully unsourced (unless the External Links are meant to be sources?). casualdejekyll18:57, 19 April 2022 (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.