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. chaser (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swanpool Beach[edit]

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

Almost no information, maybe it's also non-notable? Highest Heights (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists, if you do a Google search. It just needs to be punched up a bit. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Speedy delete A7. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately it has already been nominated for speedy once and declined, no idea why, it was clearly an A1. – ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I expect the reason that it was declined was that the article provided perfectly clear context - in fact it was nothing but context. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2009 (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.