Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozambican Biwako


 * 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mozambican Biwako

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently a (quite detailed) hoax. No sources provided and I can't find anything mentioning this bird on the internet aside from a handful of Wikipedia mirrors. Note that the redirect Biwako was previously converted to an article on this supposed topic. Plantdrew (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Mozambique is verifiably a country with severe flood risk. As such, significant damages occur to Mozambican homes and abodes. The one matter that casts doubt onto the idea that it is a hoax is that hoaxes generally only occur when an object of interest is manufactured (Fiji Mermaid, Cardiff Giant, Bigfoot, Piltdown Man, et al.), a criterion not met by this, as there is very little interest in birds of this specific type outside of ornithology. A hoax, above all else, is generally fantastical and noteworthy. A bird that lives in the mud does not really qualify for that. Kakeithewolf (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Were a source still available, evidence would be provided. Lack of sources also does not mean that a subject is not of note, considering the fact that many stubs are without sources, as well as the fact that many subjects are simply not high priority in study. However, though I provided the original text for the article, there appears to be two sites (neither of which I knew the existence of) that actually discuss the Biwako: http://abc-wordbook.com/word/Biwako and http://america.pink/biwako_678229.html. It appears to have an according MD5 checksum of 9ba65bac22d348f3b401369168613a7f, SHA1 hash of 97e88f4d0e1003c107f5b52900431aa8473c8f4c, and the T9 representation 249256 corresponds to Biwako. Other sources would be http://en.unionpedia.org/Biwako and http://www.gbif.org/species/102094577 (though Phragmacia is a poorly documented genus on GBIF). Kakeithewolf (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete seems a hoax, particularly the part about losing the paper in the hard drive, will change vote if proof of its existence emerges.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Speedy as a hoax. Completely unsourced and no independent search results.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  02:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the usual deletion case, a failure of sources means that the subject is not notable.  Here the failure calls into question the very existence of the thing.  It seems the archetypal case for applying WP:Verifiability, not truth.  (And that supposes that this in fact true.)  JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Seems like a hoax, with no coverage besides some Wikipedia mirrors. The GBIF source above says nothing about P. humufilius, although it mentions P. substriata. Complete lack of verifiability, and I can't seriously believe that "Sharpe is dead and in more obscured a grave than Jean-Valjean could aspire to." GABHello! 20:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - indeed I was unable to find any reference anywhere (other than these few apparent mirrors) to crypto biologist Neil Sharpe or to the species "P. humufilius". JohnInDC (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  11:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC) *''

Look, I can get a verifiable source, but I need some time. The process of obtaining the sources and evidence will require combing through many hard drives completely, as well as full deeper web searches to get access to the files of the defunct site the sources are listed on. I can do this, but it will take me a little time, okay? Kakeithewolf (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as unsourced and potentially a hoax. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. How about we delete this completely unsourced and implausible article and, when actual reliable sources are forthcoming, we consider reinstating it.  Everyone wins.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently this just resurfaced as Biwako? Slapped it with a speedy template. Speedy delete as obvious hoax (I am sitting here in the premier institute of ornithology for southern Africa, and believe me we ain't heard none of that there chimaera...) -- Elmidae  (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources can be found. Seems like it's probably not even in existence, let alone notable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no entry on Wikispecies for Phragmacia humufilius, which keeps with the recurring theme of "no sources" concerning this article. With all of this evidence piled against it, I say delete immediately. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:35, 8 March 2016 (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.