Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gippsland phantom cat

Add links
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 redirect to Phantom cat. Almost nobody wants to keep, but editors need to figure out how much, if anything, they want to merge from history.  Sandstein  20:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gippsland phantom cat[edit]

Gippsland phantom cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFRINGE and WP:GNG.

  • Current sources: 2 with broken links[1][2] and 2 that don't mention the subject[3][4]
    • Sources suggested recently on talkpage when my PROD was removed: 1 article in a tabloid newspaper[5] and 2 self-published websites[6][7]; 0 RS
  • Google search: 49 hits; 0 RS
  • News: 0 hits
  • Google books (-"books llc" -wikipedia): 3 hits--(1) this passing mention in a novel, (2) Exotic Zoology (1959) that I can't access, and (3) this book whose publisher only has a facebook page.
  • Google scholar: 2 hits from the same website that's a WP mirror; 0 RS

Searches for the alternative title given in the article, "Gippsland big cat", turn up less results. —PermStrump(talk) 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Phantom cat. Refs and search results may not be strong enough to satisfy WP:N but are strong enough to satisfy WP:V. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think verifiability has been established. This particular phantom cat is rarely mentioned in any of the sources discussed. I'm not positive there is a cryptid commonly known as the Gippsland phantom cat. Most (all?) of the sites that mention it by this name are citing WP or mirrors of it. —PermStrump(talk) 14:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Weak Keep: The 'Gippsland phantom cat' title appears to be descriptive rather than common - "Gippsland panther" appears to be used a bit. For WP:V, see this and this, for instance. That said, there's big cat sightings all over, "territories" are a continuum, and there's a lot of regional names. Better would be a single solid article about Australian phantom cats, which are a common enough fringe topic in RS, have had books and book coverage on the topic ([9], [10], [11]), and which have had official action/response in Victoria ([12], [13], [14]) and NSW ([15], [16], [17]). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 15:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not totally opposed to merging, but since this seems to be a descriptive title, I don't quite see the purpose as it's rarely the term actually used to describe the thing. Keeping in mind that I was almost exclusively looking at self-published websites and tabloids, I did see Australian big cats come up enough that I'm open to the small possibility that Australian big cats are notable enough for a section in the main Phantom cat article (which I'm not even convinced merits its own article). Most of these things probably should get redirects to List of cryptids with a 1-2 sentence description and no main article. Because the thing I'm seeing with these regional phantom cats (e.g., see also Blue Mountains panther) is that, if they're even covered in independent reliable sources at all, which most aren't, it's never anything close to in depth coverage, so the only thing to say about them is that there's been speculation about sightings, which isn't encyclopedic per WP:SPECULATION. That's how we end up with a Phantom cat article that is literally a list of sightings of non-existent cats that doesn't give the reader any information about the myth, its origin, where it's popular, etc., and basically treats it like it might be a real thing, because that's the only coverage that exists...people claiming to have seen them and sources repeating people's claims to have seen them. —PermStrump(talk) 04:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I'm not sure it's not a hoax. The section name "Theories and myths" does not instill confidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 07:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only source which seems to discuss this topic in depth is the one entitled "Big cats in South West Victoria - was it the US Army who put them there?" from the ABC, but that's a deadlink and while the Wayback Machine appears to have several crawls, they all just appear to be snapshots of the ABC's 404 page. "DNA tests to determine big cat claims" is at least available and does concern a large cat in the general area, but there's nothing there to suggest it's anything more than a particularly large housecat. I did a Factiva search and drew a blank. If this isn't a hoax, it still fails WP:V in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete without merge/redirect - I'm not seeing any subject "Gippsland phantom cat" here. Some examples of alleged sightings (including a guy who allegedly saw an exotic cat...so he shot it (?), cut off its tail (?), and dumped its body in the river (?), then decided to get it on the news), but tying them together into one subject is WP:SYNTH. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Phantom cat. The subject is not a hoax; it passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here is a source about the Gippsland phantom cat:
    1. Bateman, Daniel (2012-06-13). "Mystery big cat lurking on Maggie Island - On the prowl". Townsville Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2016-08-12. Retrieved 2016-08-12.

      The article notes:

      Big cat sightings

      The Gippsland Phantom Cat

      It is claimed the cats were brought to south-eastern Victoria by American World War II airmen who had cougars as mascots and released them into the Australian bush.

    Cunard (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gippsland_phantom_cat&oldid=1137879650"