Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagmar, Queensland

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 redirect to Daintree National Park with no prejudice against merging any content editors find signficant. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar, Queensland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Population of this locality is zero. Location in dense forest suggests the population has always been zero. On what basis is this notable? Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its population is zero and it's in dense forest, because it's part of the Daintree National Park which is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Wet Tropics of Queensland which is noted for its pristine natural condition, natural beauty, significant population of endangered species etc. Since the UNESCO listing (which I have now added to the article), there have been deliberate decisions made to cease logging and agricultural in the Wet Tropics area. [1] Unlike some countries, most of Australia's national parks (especially if protected for their natural wilderness) don't normally have permanent populations (sometimes due to compulsory resumption of private property, non-renewal of pastural leases etc to minimise human impact). Some national parks do have temporary accommodation facilities for rangers and visitors, e.g. cabins, campgrounds etc, if they are not close to other alterative accommodation. And there are usually walking tracks, etc. I'll make some additions to the article along these lines. Kerry (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Of course Daintree National Park is notable, but that doesn't mean this locality, apparently a census district, is notable. The UNESCO listing is irrelevant to the locality, and none of the sources you added mention Dagmar. Any walking tracks also belong in the Daintree article. This is a non sequitur, and there would need to be sources discussing what accomodations are in Dagmar, not just at the park. Or it could be redirected there. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dagmar is a locality (an official administrative subdivision like a suburb boundary within Queensland); it is also a census district but that is a consequence of being a locality/suburb. I have added some further sources on the history but, as I am caught up in a serious family illness at the moment, I cannot get to the library where I would likely find more source material. Kerry (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete It doesn't inherit notability from the park, and there's no other claim to notability. At this point no way to pass WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be sufficient independent sources to demonstrate notability. Even if that is not the consensus, there's a strong case for WP:ATD as the page could easily be merged to Daintree National Park rather than deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Daintree National Park, and I'm not seeing any information worth merging to the national park article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Daintree National Park. There is well referenced valuable encyclopedic content here, but the locality is not notable in its own right. (The locality's redirect needs to be maintained to maintain completeness of the geography of the shire it is in.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2021 (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.