Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Beaked Cockatoo


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Blue Beaked Cockatoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Could not find any reliable sources. Seems, in my view, to be a hoax. Jinkinson  talk to me  02:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Jinkinson ; The reason there are no common reliable sources is because this is a newly discovered species or cross breed of bird, it is currently understudy and more information will be added as research is done, this species will not go under any test that will harm it or injure it. I fully understand your disbelief and why you believe this is a Hoax, but I assure you, this is not a simple Hoax.--Cadkane1 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * x3 Delete - The Wikipedia article is the only Google hit, Cacatua ophthalmica is the species name for the Blue-eyed Cockatoo. For any newly described species, there will almost surely be Google hits, since such research is published. Chris857 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: as home-made taxonomy. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that this particular type of cockatoo exists except for this Wikipedia page. Even a search for "Blue Billed Cockatoo" doesn't come up with anything to show it exists at all, let alone as an informal or unofficial thing. This is either a hoax or an attempt to promote something someone came up with one day. Or both. I've tagged it for a speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the article creator, since he is checking here- assuming that this isn't an attempt to promote a hoax... you can't just up and say something exists and then put it on Wikipedia. You have to back it up with reliable sources such as news articles, journal entries in peer reviewed journals about the bird, and so on. Even then, you'd have to argue a pretty persuasive battle to show that any new hybrid deserves its own entry apart from its parent bird species- it's very common for new unrecognized breeds of animals such as dogs to not have an article or a mention on Wikipedia due to a lack of coverage and recognition from reliable sources. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The speedy has been declined, but I'm more convinced than ever that this is a hoax. The article uses the species name Cacatua ophthalmica, which goes to a different type of cockatoo. Plus the article asserts that the birds are known to live up to a certain amount of time, but again- this article is the only source for this. There are literally no sources out there for this at all. None. Zip. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Hoax or not, lacks reliable sources. JNW (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I'll AGF and assume that  it's a genuine new species, but  we must wait with  an article like this until  it's been reported in recognised journals and other established sources. But  for now, it's definitely too  soon  for the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kudpung. If it is indeed a new taxon, it still needs to be described formally before it can be recognized as such. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't know if I would necessary assume bad faith simply because this is, more or less, the creator's first real contribution, but the fact that the article claims that the animal is crossed with a species of unknown bird makes me skeptical as to whether it really exists.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 02:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I wasn't able to find any coverage. Mkdw talk 00:16, 15 December 2013 (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.