Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapello

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.  Denelson83  02:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Chapello

Hoax ? —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Not a very good one alas. Delete. Sjc 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• As the author of this article I can provide written confirmation from everyone cited within the article as well as numerous published journal articles on findings concerning the Chapello. Simply because knowledge of this creature isnt within your limited knowledge of animals does not mean it is a hoax. The Chapello is a creature which has documented proof of existance from top researchers at top universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.139.108 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 05:14:45 UTC
  • Then do so. Uncle G 13:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax bordering on patent nonsense. Ifnord 05:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Why are you so sure it is a hoax? Have you heard of every animal in existance, even those found in clandestine forests in the middle of jungles in 3rd world countries? If not then perhaps you would consider that this is a real animal who has simply had a dearth of information published about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.139.108 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 05:25:35 UTC
  • (Lord, why can't I ignore trollers/hoaxers?) This isn't a case of a panda or a platypus that some researcher has brought forth a carcass and no one believes them. There is nothing to substantiate your claim. Bring forth your evidence, I can't "prove" a negative. Ifnord 05:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as speedy vandalism category of G3, which includes creating hoax articles. A Google search for Chappello returns 5 unique hits see [1] with no result relevant to the subject of the article so problems under WP:V in any case. No Google print and three Google scholar articles [2] with no relevant articles retrieved. There is simply no verifiable evidence for the existence of this animal so we cannot accept the article. It is up to authors to cite verifiable evidence in support of their articles and the author has not done so. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no obvious evidence this exists (give us the Latin name, Mr. Anonymous) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 16:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because the article uses "currently" twice in the same sentence, and I just can't accept that. BD2412 T 23:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless a good verifiable reference, including the scientific name of the animal, is provided and verified prior to expiration of AfD. Source citation is a necessity whenever the factual accuracy of an article is suspect. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Latin name: Lupus Hominum, and there is a literary device called anaphora, which has been employed by some of the greatest writers of all time, Homer and Vergil to name a notable two. Dont question my syntax when it isn't relevant.

• Go ahead and Delete. "Lupus hominum" receives 12 Google hits, all of which are unrelated Latin fragments. --Zetawoof 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as non-verifiable. --Me or a Robin 10:26, 10 November 2005 (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.