Deletion of Lyndal Eckersley

Comment: As a hoax article and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:CB)

Comment: No |attribution, likely unattributable, possible hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: Ok, which policy should I pick for this. If it's real, it's  on the grounds that  and  has not been met. Under the current informal rules for BLP AfD's, this meets the 50 plus 1 rule and can be culled right now. If it's not, it's a hoax clear cut and dried. I doubt very much that the home of some 20'something women would be protected by the National Trust of Australia. This is another dead giveaway for the hoax status, as the National Parks Service linked to in the article is the organisation of the United States. Additionally, the image used in the article of the purported house is as noted by Deor is that of Clara Barton. Seriously, does a day not go by without having to deal with this kind of rubbish
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VSCA||WP:N||WP:BLP)