Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexopedic cuniculus


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hexopedic cuniculus
Hoax. No such animal. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, but it's amusing.... 70.27.59.200 19:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tosh, unless bolstered with multiple references. Sliggy 00:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoax, patent nonsense. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You know it amazes me, an entire plethora of people jum p to the conclusion that an article should be deleted for the reason that it surpases the knowledge level of the reader. Looking at the prepositions for deletion thus far, the individuals proposing this articles deletion are all software designers or liberal arts specialists.  Being a microbiologist in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle), I can attest to the truth of the existence of the Hexopedic cuniculus.  At the Oceanic Biologist Conference last year, the hexopedic cuniculus was the main item for discussion.  Over the 4 day retreat in Harrison British Columbia, Canada, that we decided it was worth preserving this genetic abnormality.  It was decided at the end of the conference to encourage highschools in Canada to preserve this modified rodent.
 * Yes, this page needs work; however, this is not a hoax. Having observed the hexopedic cuniculus in slide shows and video, i can attest to it being a real animal.  I will try and find pictures in my files, until then, I urge you not to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.109.93 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 October 2005


 * To the anonymous contributor above: I am neither a specialist software designer (although I dabble) nor a liberal arts specialist. I am, however, very interested in seeing the references you claim. Could you provide some more detail please? I would particularly welcome peer-reviewed work from established journal(s). In the mean time I hope you will be able to forgive me, but I continue to be highly sceptical about the existence of these animals. Sliggy 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Arguments that it is a hoax:
 * The WP entry for rabbit doesn't list "cuniculus" as a synonym for rabbit.
 * Dictionary.com defines "cuniculus" as "The burrow of the itch mite in the skin", or a pacas, which is found in South America (and not a rabbit).
 * The Gopherus rafinesque is a tortoise, not the "Arctic Goffer [sic]."
 * There are no Google hits for either "Alfred Vandoogle," "Vandoogle Association of Arctic Mammals", or "West Pacific Sea Pelican".
 * The anonymous poster's IP address is in Toronto, Ontario, not Seattle. And what would a microbiologist be doing studying rabbits anyway?
 * Nice try. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would suggest to the anon contributor above that he make an offline backup of the content; if sufficient references come to light to alter our viewpoint, he would be free to restore it then... but ONLY if he can provide sufficient evidence (and I do mean sufficient). Radagast 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. Speedy if possible. Bearcat 23:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not a specialist software designer, but I do know something about Yukon wildlife. Hoax and patent nonsense. Not even funny enough to meet the low standards of humour in BJAODN. Speedy delete. Luigizanasi 03:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. Same reasoning as above. Jonathan Grynspan 15:48, 29 October 2005 (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.