Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Louise 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. v/r - TP 03:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sophie Louise Bay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was PRODded as unreferenced and I deleted it, but deletion has been challenged on my talk page by Richard Nicolson himself, the namer of the bay. I have explained our requirement for reliable published sources; but since this was a PROD deletion I have restored the article and bring it here.

Even if there comes an account, e.g in a yachting magazine, I doubt if that would meet the notability requirement. If the name were officially adopted, so that it appeared on charts, that might be different, though features like capes and bays do not have any inherent notability; but I do not know whether recognition by "the Ocean Cruising Club, the Royal Cruising Club and others" will appear in a published, checkable form, or how much that would count for if it did.

In the absence of any WP:RS, the article cannot stand at present. I would consider userfying it, but would like to give the (new) author clear advice on what sort of sources might be accepted for verifiability and notability. I will post at WP:WikiProject Geography. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:V (and WP:MADEUP). From the coordinates given in the article, this appears to be an inlet of the Shortland Channel (about which we lack an article), and I'd be mildly surprised if some explorer or other hadn't previously given it an informal name, though none appears to have stuck—at least, none appears on Canadian topo maps. Personally, I would consider accepting an article on such a feature only if the name were recognized by the Geographical Names Board of Canada. Deor (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to nearby geographical place., as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - A name made up by one person claiming it's discovery fails verifiability as well as no original research. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Deor, and WP:HOAX. Creator should be given a final warning. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2013 (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.