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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucklands Beach skirmish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Suspected hoax. Neither of the online references make give any hint that the landslip is attributed to anything other than natural causes, and I have not found any other references in reliable sources. As it stands the article is a piece of Original Research. dramatic (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, soon as. Notice how it describes the skirmish in great detail. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm doubtful whether this incident really existed, but even if it did it doesn't appear to be of sufficient importance to warrant an article.-gadfium 09:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be fiction, otherwise not noteable. Herald article contradicts article slip claim ("act of nature" vs "sabotaged"), Eastern Courier is online but see no mention. XLerate (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:notability. Kalivd (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if it's true, how is it notable? Eddie.willers (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POINT AlexTiefling (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've had a go at confirming this incident from various sources and can't find anything other than this article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete I have checked print version's of the 'Courier' - references are correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.8.242 (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And do these articles discuss the fights in the context of an ongoing feud, or as an isolated incident? For this article to hold up we need something specifically about the feud from a source with journalistic integrity (most community newspapers these days seem to print just about anything they are given). dramatic (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete There was some reference to this on a blog I passed by the other day, seemed to be true. As a kiwi, I know the Herald often gets the story slightly wrong. It's also possible the articles were from before the slip cause was known. Obviously this isn't a huge story, but how can you say an incident that may result in several houses falling into the sea is unimportant? There are articles on this site with all the different types of worm, the point being that it is a gigantic pool of knowledge. Anyway, for what it's worth, my call is that this is not a hoax. 118.92.195.106 (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If someone is eventually convicted for sabotaging the cliff, then it would be notable and articleworthy. Notability is defined by multiple independent coverage, not by rumour and hearsay. dramatic (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable trivia. Written in a style that may cause the article itself to incite trouble, for example "a revenge attack is being planned by the East side group". Unsourced rubbish invented by the author. Could the author of this article be planning this attack? The article should be removed from Wikipedia as quickly as possible.--Lester 00:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quite frankly, you are an idiot. Someone posts a possible hoax and you think they are going to follow through with it? And to me its sounds like the author may be a local basing this on hearsay and rumours, but isn't that where 99% of all history recorded comes from? Give the author a chance to prove him/herself before deleting an article that may be of great importance to the community it comes from. Local news deserves as much importance, or more, than half the rubbish on Wikipedia. 120.37.721.553 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Please keep is civil, my anonymous friend. Recorded history is not based solely on rumours, but on sources of varying reliability. This is what the guidelines WP:V and WP:RS are for. As for the planned future attack, I'd say there were problems both with its notability and the fact that it's an unconfirmed future event. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of reliable sources. Those sources that do exist contradict story. Probable Hoax. - SimonLyall (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - IMO there are severe problems with this article with respect to notability, accuracy, bias and style. It reads like a letter to the editor from a disgruntled local busybody. BigBadaboom0 (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2008 (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.