Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augeant

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) 07:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augeant

Apparent hoax. I can't find any evidence that this place in France exists. An article exists in the French Wikipedia, but I have nominated that article for deletion as well for the same reason. The French AfD discussion is here. The INSEE code (19023) shown in the article belongs to Beynat. All towns are notable, except for hoaxes. Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eastmain. I could find no evidence of the existence of this commune in France. I looked in Google, the Corrèze department's website, my AA 2005 Maxi Atlas France and found no references. I checked the French Wikipedia, and found that the INSEE code on that article (19014) is for the commune of Auriac, Corrèze. Kiwipete (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention in INSEE, or anywhere else outside Wikipedia for that matter. C'est un canular. Gr1st (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete if it doesn't exist. I didn't start the article ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hoaxes are specifically excluded from the CSD criteria; this could be blatant misinformation, but that's different from a hoax. Townlake (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Note that the French AFD discussion appears to be strongly in favor of deletion. Actually, note that CSD G1 says that hoaxes may be speedied in blatant cases, and if there's a blatant lack of existence for this place, as the editorofthewiki and Kiwipete say, this sounds like a pretty blatant hoax. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a perceived hoax has even a remote chance of being plausible, it should go through the AfD process, to bar re-creation (via easing of future speedy process) if nothing else. While I agree the facts and errors here make this place look dubious, it simply strikes me as better process to let this go through the wringer just in case. Townlake (talk) 20:53, 13 August 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.