Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant-penguin hoax


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Giant-penguin hoax

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an unsourced, unfocused, and rather bizarre discussion about some alleged sightings of a 15 foot penguin in Florida. There are no inline citations, and the only cited references are a tripod website and an article (not available online) from a magazine called Fortean Times, which is apparently a conspiracy-theory magazine. Horologium t-c 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, can we get an admin to close this as a Keep, under WP:SNOW? I'm going to withdraw this nomination, since there are plenty of sources after all. They just need to be added to the article. Horologium t-c 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a hoax that meets notability, as a Google of florida+giant+penguin easily showed. And while I will not directly dispute your characterization of the Fortean Times, it is possible to write objectively and authoritatively about conspiracies and hoaxes. --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I was about to post some of the same links as Dhartung. And the 1988 St. Petersburg Times article by Jan Kirby is available on Newsbank, for anyone who's interested. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable and sufficiently notable hoax. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung's sources, sufficiently notable. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the above. Notability does not expire. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. No one here is trying to pass off a hoax as truth. The article clearly states that its subject is a hoax, and one that apparently deceived quite a few people, so the notability is not in question here. See Loch Ness Monster. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:10, 26 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.