Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Bay

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. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bay[edit]

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

An editor tagged this article for speedy deletion as vandalism. I declined the tag as it obviously wasn't vandalism. However, the editor intended to tag it as a hoax. Given that the article itself states that it is an obscure bay, that makes it harder to determine whether it exists and there's litle about it or whether it doesn't exist at all. Doing Google searches all I've found are clones of the article. If it is a hoax, it should obviously be deleted. However, even if not, if it has no notability, it should also be deleted, although I recognize that many editors at Wikipedia don't like to delete any place articles. I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax, not listed at Geoscience Australia place name search.--Grahame (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if it's entirely or just partially a hoax. I certainly can't find any sources to suggest keeping it.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that even say that this place even exists. Esquivalience ^t 02:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the geo coordinates point to a place called Chance Bay, for what it's worth. As a total side note: NOAA provides free nautical charts... why can't Austrailia? —Noah 04:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found that Navonics has a free online chart. Turtle Bay is labled on that one... nothing else nearby. Not definitive, but one more bit of data. —Noah 05:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it's not even listed by Geoscience Australia, that's a massive red flag. And come on, named after someone married there in 2009? Seems like a bit of romantic fluff to me, not a serious article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 16 February 2015 (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.