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 Speedy delete G3 Vandalism by Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin-closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avius cani[edit]

Avius cani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No google results (except wiki-copy pages). The supposed reference is "unpublished" and equally gives no google results (except wiki-copy pages) - both when misspelling it "Britsh" (as done in the article) and when spelling in correctly. The supposed author of the source, Mary L'Estrange, also cited in the main text as one of the few people who've witnessed this supposed species, likewise gives no google results (except wiki-copy pages). So, the entire article, created entirely by a single recent user and an unknow IP address, fails for WP:V. I have forwarded a link to this deletion proposal to the WikiProject Cryptozoology Rabo3 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably a hoax, all we have is an unpublished source and a self published source, both unreliable. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a hoax to me. Get it published in a book, and then this article can be recreated. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As hoax…No information. Shoessss |  Chat  02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've seen these; they're pretty cute. However, they're also entries into a Photoshop contest. Even given that this is an article on a cryptid (which may or may not exist by its very nature), the lack of any published sources means we can't write anything about its supposed existence. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - hoax. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hoaxes are (unfortunately?) not speedy deletion candidates. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • • I don't think in this case, as it isn't obvious, but G3 covers vandalism, and "adding known inaccuracies" is a type of vandalism. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tagged as such. Let's get this over with. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "It is said to attack a man if confronted and to be "partial" to human flesh". Amusing, but almost certainly a hoax as pointed out above. Delete, Lankiveil (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete hoax Macy's123 10:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, a well written hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 13:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable hoax. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 14:15, 23 December 2007 (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.