Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenbrook Lagoon


 * 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The result was   - Withdrawn by nominator- Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Glenbrook Lagoon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a hoax. The Blue Mountains (Australia) and Glenbrook, New South Wales (where the explorers passed through) are in Australia, not New Zealand. Grahame (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the NZ reference was a bit of mis-wikifying see here. The original reads as made up - Peripitus (Talk) 06:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Keep - Bloody good work Dramatic - Peripitus (Talk) 09:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - apart from the link to the wrong Glenbrook, which is easily fixed, the lagoon exists and there are good sources for everything in the article:, , , . dramatic (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, there is still some question whether the lagoon is notable in its own right or whether this couldn't be included in the Glenbrook, New South Wales article.--Grahame (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes Notability (geography), which isn't official policy but states that named geographic features (eg lakes) are usually notable. Certainly do not delete, at most a redirect to Glenbrook, New South Wales, but the information in the sources already provided gives plenty of scope for expansion into a good stub or even full article.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a named geographic feature. Furthermore, there are sources.  As the editor who wikified the article, I should have been a little more vigilant as the original author is a vandal who is now blocked. -- Whpq (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn in view of the effort to convert the original silly and unsourced article into a real article.--Grahame (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.