Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Beach

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 speedy delete. Closing this early, per WP:SNOW and the possibility that it might be a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Beach

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

Possible hoax? The references are hard to check, as discussed on the article's talk page and the contributing editor's talk page. While I could have proposed this for speedy deletion as a hoax I think this one requires discussion and a full conclusion to be reached. I think this is not one where a 'no consensus' outcome would be appropriate on the basis that it either is, or is not, a hoax. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, my own opinion is conditional on the hoax/genuine status, and should not be inferred just because I have nominated it for discussion here:

Keep if genuine because we carry articles with genuine place names, even if their notability is borderline

Delete if hoax because that is what we do

I am not competent to determine whether is it genuine or a hoax. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My view is much the same as Timtrent's above. I can find no evidence for this name but am accustomed to WP:AGF. But unless someone can find a verifiable WP:RS, and until the creating editor can show why the asserted reference on page 100 of Channel Island Walks isn't visible, I think we will have to delete. Is there any online mapping for Jersey which has the same reliability as the British Ordnance Survey, on which the placename could be found? PamD 10:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be a colloquial name for a beach of a different name. If it can be proven to be such and the article amended to reflect that, then I suggest moving the article to the formal name of the beach, with the colloquial name forming a part of that article (or merging with any pre-exsting article). I would be content with that outcome. Fiddle Faddle 10:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very reasonable. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jersey but not sure it's very active. PamD 10:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too tried to verify the existence of this place both in the sources provided and through general searches and came up with nothing. If not a hoax, it is at least a name that is only used locally and is not recognized by any actual authority as the name of the place. (Locals often have their own names for stretches of beach, ponds that are too small to actually have a name, paths through the woods, etc., that are not verifiable in any way meaningful to Wikipedia.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I too failed the find mention of this name in the cited works, nor could I find any meaningful juxtaposition of the words in French. It was created by someone who did precious little else, and I have to think it is a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it isn't a hoax. Even if true, it doesn't seem notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether hoax, or not. Nothing here is verifiable. Precious little work was put into it, and it would take that same precious little to rebuild it if warranted. As it stands, event that "named" the beach is not even listed in the "see also" link added, on shipwrecks. The creator can put it in his sandbox in the meantime, if so desired. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, whether or not it is a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, and its creator's behavior suggests that the page is a hoax. Miniapolis 22:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fairly certain it's a hoax, here are all of Jersey's beaches (according to the official Jersey website)- none of them are called or nicknamed Australian Beach. Same with this. If this beach existed as the article suggests, it would be famous, and thus on at least 1 of these sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of the "refs" provided mentions a beach named Australian so it fails WP:V. MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Even if it exists, there appears to be no legal recognition or coverage, thereby failing WP:GEOLAND. Esquivalience ^t 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can we call it now as WP:SNOW, and close this as a simple deletion (not a speedy deletion, just a snowball close to delete)?

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.