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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zena Timber[edit]

Zena Timber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Prod contested by The Enchantress Of Florence. No evidence of notability. Katr67 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N, WP:V. The article does not assert notability, nor cite anything. Happyme22 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hard to think of any policy or guideline that would spell out notability for this one. Qworty (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. FSC certified forest, and "The national Forest Stewards Guild has designated the Zena Forest as a Model Forest..." which gives notability. Could be reverenced easily, so WP:V doesn't matter. Malinaccier (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And trivial coverage (i.e. the page is not about Zena in the reference you added) does not confer notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Aboutmovies. The footnoted link talks about a whole bunch of forests--the reference to Zena Forest doesn't even have an accesssible web link. It doesn't pass WP:N Artene50 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (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.