Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ooly the Oologah Lake Monster

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 speedily deleted by User:Malik Shabazz, "‎G3: Vandalism - blatant hoax or misinformation." Non-admin closure for housekeeping. — Glenfarclas (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooly the Oologah Lake Monster[edit]

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

Non-notable supposed monster, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A mention at Oologah Lake is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. No sources at all (reliable or otherwise), as far as I can find.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not even verify that this was a notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Why not Db-Hoax? --Stroppolo^talk 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it isn't Madeup, then there's still no sources to prove the subject's notability, nor is there any claim to notability. By the way, Stroppolo, both the Speedy and Hoax prods were removed by the article's creator, which why we're here right now, apparently. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I debated whether to put db-hoax back, but even though I don't believe in lake-monsters I thought it wasn't blatantly obvious that the lore or belief in an Oologah Lake Monster was a hoax. Needless to say, I'd raise no objection at all if someone does choose to speedy delete this. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was put up for speedy deletion but the article creator removed it . I will put it up for speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Santaslayer, the article creator, and User:Nuttycracker another contributor to the article, may be sockpuppets. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that went without saying. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2010 (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.