Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffalo Bigfoot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Buffalo Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable bigfoot legend variant. Just 8 non-wiki ghits, most of which are not about this creature; zero gnews hits. Source given in article is a TV station homepage and doesn't mention creature. Prod contested with no reason given. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but preferable MergeDelete-I've added some more references to it. Google news hits are low, true; but I've added some notable local media covering this story. This article is a mess, but I'd say if anything, merge into primary Bigfoot article, but it may be able to stand on it's own, as I am currently working on it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)I'll work this into the primary article. I've researched more into it, and doesn't seem enough to stand on it's own as an article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep - An article based on one report of one citing of a creature is not necessary, and the quality of the article is very poor. However, as Paranormal Skeptic is willing to take ownership of the issue and proposes to merge the article if it cannot stand on its own we should give this editor a chance to work on it. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As hoax. This page would be acceptable only IF all the material written with a belief in the hoax -- for instance "Learning to Adapt" and all that other gibberish speculation -- is cut out, and the page is rewritten to report on the 2006 hoax. (A hoax page like Mel's Hole, for instance.) Even then we're left with notability and source problems. Let's just make it a quick death. --Lockley (talk) 21:58, 21 October 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.