Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gape gate

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. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gape gate[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suspected hoax, though not blatant enough for CSD-G3. No hits on scientific article databases, nor in google books. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches revealed nothing of interest that would match. Includes an apparent typo for gait and as per the note on the article talk page this seems to be based on a conversation overheard one day rather than anything verifiable and consequently fails WP:V and possibly the guidance of WP:MADEUP. Other hoax indicators seem to be the pseudoscientific but nonsense words penquin, peliotia, tibiosarsus and femorus bravis. Fæ (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete hoax, as evidenced by the many misspellings in the article. "Gate" should be "gait", "tibiosarus" should be "tibiotarsus", etc. Additionally, there are no Google hits to show that it exists. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming this is intended to be serious, the term "gape gait" has no hits on Google scholar, and so the neologism has not found any traction. --Lambiam 09:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a hoax. Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Nothing found for "gape gait". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2011 (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.