Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindmarsh Island 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 merge and redirect to Hindmarsh Island. (Is there some irony that I'm currently at a house on this Hindmarsh Island closing this debate?) Daniel (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindmarsh Island Forest[edit]

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

This appears to be about an only marginally notable place and it lacks information and sources. Proposed deletion tag was removed by the author. United States Man (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we started removing all the marginally notable pages, we'd rape the project. (We could start with all the train and bus schedules...) <grin> Flag it as a stub/non-referenced and let it grow.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marginally notable is still notable. I would further note that the page was created by a newbie (and one who does not seem to be self promoting in any way, shape, or form) and that after they legitimately removed the PROD, following that up immediately with an AfD is against the spirit of wp:BITE Neonchameleon (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was not legitimately removed. There are still no sources on that page. United States Man (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. You don't have to give any reason for removing a PROD or even have to change things. It says "You are encouraged, but not required, to also:" The exception is the wp:BLPPROD Neonchameleon (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing in major Australian search engine trove [1], and nothing when I searched within .gov.au for Australian government. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are you telling us there is no forest? (I looked a Google maps and didn't anything I would call a forest.) If so, that would be a question of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and a vote changer.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Hindmarsh Island and there's a forest there ("The main fire hazard on Hindmarsh Island is the large forest plantation"[2], page 20) but perhaps there is a conspiracy to make us think there is a Hindmarsh Island Forest. There are lots of tourist ads saying you can walk in the forest on the island but maybe when you get there you become sadly disappointed. Thincat (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hindmarsh Island appears to have a forest plantation according to google maps satellite view (and the article gives grid references) - personally I think that if it calls itself a forest it has delusions of grandeur. But it certainly has sections that are tree covered and are considered a bushfire hazard risk - and referred to as a forest in the assessment risk linked. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combine with Hindmarsh Island.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hindmarsh Island. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. United States Man (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hindmarsh Island seems to be the most sensible course of action. Invertzoo (talk) 19:55, 26 December 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.