Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synaute

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 of the debate was delete. (and yes from where I'm from there are hundreds of "cenotes") -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synaute

Sounds plausible, but with only two unique non-wikipedia google hits - a list of words and something that looks suspiciously like an uncredited wikimirror - I remain unconvinced. Does anyone know whether this is kosher, or some kind of hoax? Grutness...wha? 13:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified. I don't even think it sounds all that plausible (the unexplained bit about the two kinds of water is pretty suspicious) but even if it did, we have to have a way of getting rid of plausible-sounding hoaxes. --Trovatore 13:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to cenote per Andrew c (not sure there's anything to merge). --Trovatore 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That was silly of me. No point in redirecting; not a plausible misspelling. If there's nothing to merge I guess we're back to delete. --Trovatore 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not buying this either. Sounds too much like WP:NOTMUISOD. -- MarcoTolo 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as non-verifiable probable hoax. I checked out those two hits, and they both refer back to the Wikipedia article for the text. RGTraynor 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong merge These things exist, only they are called cenotes. --Andrew c 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Redirect This sounds very much like a mishearing from the recent BBC Natural History series 'Planet Earth'. These pools were mentioned (I think in the 'Caves' episode if memory serves) and there was reference to the 'two kinds of water' which is an optical illusion caused by the convergence of salt and freshwater flows, and can mislead divers to believe they are seeing an air pocket. Yummifruitbat 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies, not sure why I said merge, I meant redirect... IMHO it is a plausible misspelling as evidenced by the fact that someone has misspelt it thus. Yummifruitbat 17:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the fruit bat. --Ginkgo100 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a plausible mispelling, and no information to bring across to Cenote. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The fact that someone *did* mispell it thus means that it's plausible. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So yeah, apparently one person did. But is it more plausible for this meaning than for, say, synod, or sign out, or C-note? I'm generally in favor of a liberal approach to redirects, but not when there's no reasonably unambiguous interpretation for them. --Trovatore 20:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete Trovatore has me convinced. Yummifruitbat 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect. Not a plausible search term, no info to merge. Zunaid 14:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, second paragraph a bit silly. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2006 (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.