Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilled Antelope


 * 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 as hoax. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Gilled Antelope

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is an article for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed, and fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines: Reasons for deletion #7-8. Possibly #6 as well. See WP:DEL-REASON TNstingray (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For further context, I found this article while going down a cryptozoology rabbit trail. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this alleged creature, even within the cryptozoological sector (in other words, this is not an attempt to delete an article simply because I disagree with a creature's existence). All I can find are wiki pages that probably got their information from this article. No in-text citations are used, and I thoroughly examined the only source listed, which did not feature anything about the "Gilled Antelope." It was literally just a scientific description of the real, endangered Saola antelope. Any relevant information is already reflected on this page. A merger could potentially be problematic because I think this is falling in the same category as the notorious 2008 Wikipedia coati hoax, where the nickname "Brazilian aardvark" was given by a prankster, and the name persisted for six years. (See Reliability of Wikipedia). In summary, my vote is delete per the reasons listed in the original summary. This page could possibly be an example of G3 to qualify for speedy deletion, but I won't list that for certain since I do not necessarily have proof for or against this measure. TNstingray (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've speedy deleted it -- Having scanned the purported source, and checked Wikipedia Library, I agree it's a blatant hoax. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (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.