This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 30 November 2006 (→[]: closing (del. endorsed)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:07, 30 November 2006 by Xoloz (talk | contribs) (→[]: closing (del. endorsed))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < November 24 | November 26 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
25 November 2006
Gin-Sung
User:Jaranda deleted this page saying that it was unsourced and probaly a hoax. The article was sourced and was not a hoax. If he didn't think the sources were reliable enough many other articles on Misplaced Pages use it as a source. Also the reasons he said he deleted it for are not proper criteria to speedy delete an article. The article was also deleted instantly within hours of its creation not giving enough time to properly source it and edit it. The article was not a good canidate for speedy deletion and should of been a normal AfD.Zalgt 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the single source is --pgk 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and list of AfD. AFAIK, being poorly sourced is not a reason for speedy deletion -- in fact, the idea seems to be heavily opposed. See WP:CSDUA and its associated talk page. JulesH 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- undelete per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion It looks very much like a hoax, thus WP:V comes into play; looks to me like Jaranda made the right call. Eusebeus 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- We don't speedy delete hoaxes, and for good reason. I don't know if this is a hoax or not, more reason to have a full discussion on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Coment You didnt see the text of the page. Zalgt 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion, even if the reason given was not good. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)
- The only source isn't no where near a valid source see WP:RS, nothing else on google, that type of article should have gotten many google hits for China's Bigfoot looks like a rather obvious hoax on that page see WP:V, no point in relisting this in AFD only to be deleted again, Endorse my deletion. Jaranda 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete I can't believe I'm doing this, but... my own googling for the term itself turned up enough net-noise such that I am not certain that the term is a neologism (the creature may well be a hoax, like Bigfoot, but the term isn't isolated in use). I also am aware the article currently lack WP:RS, but it appears that it might be possible to find them. We might also wish to consider whether a redirect to Bigfoot, Cryptozoology, or even User:Xoloz is appropriate. :) Xoloz 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)