Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ictognathus

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ictognathus[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Ictognathus, no reference to the genus in reliable sources, article was originally cited to a TripAtlas mirror of the Wikipedia article for Carnivoramorpha. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this hoax appears to have originated on the Dutch Wikipedia with this revision of the Miacidae article by Erik R on the 22 March 2005, this was then copied and transferred to other wikis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -as noted, this is a fake genus and should be removed.--Kev min § 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The version of the article from the revision doesn't even have a single source added to it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per discussion above and for being a blatant hoax   Kadzi   (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An apparent mammal with a reference to a book on invertebrate paleontology seems to be a joke. PainProf (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the discussion the references appear to be mistranscriptions of the conodont genus Elictognathus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 09:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/per above. I seriously can't believe that a hoax like this managed to stay here since 2008... How did it not get anyone's attention? Should've been speedied at start. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2020 (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.