Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andean Wolf


 * 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 Keep. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Andean Wolf

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Every googleable reference either loop back directly to Wikipedia, cryptowiki or Cryptozoology.com. I can find no reliable source pointing to even the existence of the hoax, and while there is a Dr. Susanne Hakenbeck at Cambridge, she is an archaeologist specializing in early medieval history. Hoaxitude? -- Coren (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as possible hoax, I see no reason to believe it... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a possible hoax and there is no reliable resources for it.--†Sir James Paul† 04:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hoax creatures are fully permissible under wikipedia policy as long as their nature is made clear and they are not passed off as a real creature. Just look at bigfoot, it's got 2 or 3 different wikipedia pages relating to it and it's not been proven to exist. - perfectblue 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment A few sources on Google refer to the "Andean Wolf" as an alternate name for the Culpeo, or Patagonian Fox. Might be worth redirecting. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I found those by cross-googling. You're right, if deleted Andean Wolf would be a worthwhile redir.  -- Coren (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Would agree with the redirect. Q  T C 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You are asking the wrong Google. The article is not a hoax and there are reliable sources. Try this instead. Whether it is a species of its own or not, this animal has been the subject of several scientific writings. Rl 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The AMNH article is a very brief discussion of the status in a review of the group, but there does seem to be a real controversey and discussion. It's not a hoax in any case--it is not fake, and the discussion is notimagined--its an unproven species. "I see no reason to believe it"is not an argument. We want and have sources, not belief of individual WPedians. DGG 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Debivort 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Google only records what is common on the web and is mostly about popular culture, it's not a good source for the less popular areas of zoology or the more boring areas of cryptology. - perfectblue 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Google's limitations do not obviate the need for reliable sources. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.