Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagot Beast

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bagot Beast

Bagot Beast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Most of this article is a pseudo-historical document. This is source material that wouldn't belong in a Wikipedia article, if just for the fact that it's made up and original research. What remains is a barely notable art project. It is striking that the only google hit for "Bagot Beast" is this Wikipedia article. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Hoax? Nonsense? Maybe not speediable but damn close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)}
• Delete Even if the article is valid, it's in no way notable. TheMile (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I like this article! But WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to keep. Somebody, please go and find sources. Because I haven't, I am marking this as delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely a hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as I didn't have much luck searching either on dogpile. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:51, 22 May 2008 (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.