Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalahalli state 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avalahalli state forest[edit]

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

This article is rambling and inconsequential and makes no claims that the forest is notable. There are two spam links but otherwise it has no references, and I can find nothing on this forest online so I think it fails WP:NGEOG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see the forest mentioned in a couple of news sources 1 and 2, but the location mentioned in the article just doesn't add up from what's mentioned in those two sources. MT Train^Talk 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This is a small forest, that I really enjoy riding my bike in and there are many others who ask about information regarding the forest and the access to it. Thus, I wanted to start a page that compiled information. At this point, I am working to improve the page. Being busy, I neglected to improve the links and writing. I would like more time.Ethans10 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the state of the article (unverified and with chatty prose and needless details) this should be deleted. We could userfy it so the editor can work on it some more. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userify I have no objection to Ethans10 adding references to this article (such as [1]) and re-creating it. SportingFlyer talk 02:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A state forest would probably be notable if it was set up / managed by a statutory authority and there should be documentary evidence of that somewhere, but I don't think the fact that cyclists like to ride through it on a trail is sufficient to give it notability. I would be quite happy for the article to be userified to give Ethans10 a chance to find some good sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time believing there's a forest in the mentioned locality, with google maps showing no green cover. The locality in those earlier mentioned sources are 28 kms away, the other end of the city. Unless there's a verifiable source on the claim, I'm inclined towards a delete. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the forest in OpenStreetMap: [2] Not sure if this is WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT? SportingFlyer talk 19:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That place is 28 kms away from where it's claimed in the article. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which actually means nothing in terms of notability, but means it'd be a great candidate for a draftify/userify and cleanup. SportingFlyer talk 19:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, where is the wikiarticle on the village of Avalahalli (it is presently a redirect to B.M.S. Institute of Technology)?, although it appears to have been absorbed by Bangalore(?), prior to this megacity it would have been a seperate locality for example here is a govt report on a proposed ring road that lists numerous occurences of the village including its population at 0.26Lakh or 2600 (pp. 17, 154) and here is 2011 census data that lists its pop at 2283. so if this forest is deemed not article worthy there could be a section about it in the village article? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, I think Avalahalli should actually redirect to Yelahanka which is the closest well known area [3], [4]. Bangalore was previously made up of constituent villages, but many of these may not have been officially recognised.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay thats fine DreamLinker, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2018 (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.