Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beebe's 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 apparent hoax. DS 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Beebe&
Appears to be a hoax. I can find absolutely no mention of this supposed animal on any sites apart from Wikipedia and its mirrors. If it was truly "a prime example of cryptozoology turned zoology" then I'm sure it would have received a lot more attention. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoax. Hubbs' review of Half Mile Down was published after the fish was allegedly caught, so the story in the article doesn't make sense. . Plus, I've read up on cryptozoology, and have never heard of this. Zagalejo^^^ 08:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This certainly seems like a hoax to me, as well. "Monsters" of all sorts get lots of publicity. This one has none outside Wikipedia and its kin. For what it's worth, the original author, Proff. Sheffington, now apparently Prof. Sheffington, seems to have worked on little else other than this article. Tim Ross ·talk  17:37, 30 November 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.