Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innisbrook, Florida


 * 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 keep. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Innisbrook, Florida

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created as part of a series of questionable edits by a user creating probably non-existent places, and editing other articles so they corresponded. Tarpon Springs is directly north of Palm Harbor. There is nothing in between. This Innisbrook Resort is In Palm Harbor, which is what the page said before this user messed with it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. The current article is bogus, but the USGS says there really is a U6 unincorporated community called Innisbrook at another location in the Palm Harbor, Florida area. GNIS entry: . Otherwise, the article is unverifiable in its current state. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, my comment above and other similar articles by the same creator. The place may be real but the article one in a series of hoaxes. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep real place as shown by USGS, just removed the unverifiable crap and now it's fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The fake stuff is gone now, so now that we have a properly sourced article with correct information, there's no reason to delete it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator or Merge to Pinellas County, Florida unless actual sources demonstrating separate notability for this specific spot are shown; entry in USGS GNIS is not legal recognition and doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND, and it being "verifiable" just means WP:ITEXISTS, not WP:GNG. (Boilerplate I'm using for all these nominations: This is a series of WP:HOAX articles by, each one using a USGS GNIS entry, then copy-pasted claims from other towns or patently-false claims about being incorporated or otherwise a legally-autonomous entity or having some other significant history, so that it appears to the casual viewer that WP:GEOLAND applies or otherwise gives the façade of meeting WP:GNG, and a mess like this deletion discussion ensues.  In each case, the bulk of the article has been fantasy, often provably false, sometimes with alleged locator maps, also invented by Bnnnperdue.  USGS GNIS populated place entries only mean that a place with that name was once on a map or reported to exist at some point; lots of USGS GNIS entries have no significant cultural history and don't meet WP:GNG; for example, many were mere train stops or intersections with few buildings or other activity.  Given the creator's hoax history over the last few months, there's no reason to presume that a subject is/was notable; go look at User talk:Bnnnperdue and User:Closeapple/issues/User:Bnnnperdue and you'll see what's going on here.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:04, 14 July 2016 (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.