Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beast of Dean

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. Shimeru 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beast of Dean

Beast of Dean (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I've just been through a lot of Cryptid pages. this one contains absolutely no sources or external links whatsoever. It does not beg any notoriety at all. The 1998 sighting has no source at all.
Nominate. Non-notable local myth. ZayZayEM 05:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its not a great article granted. Essentially its only because the British aren't used to having wild animals roaming around, since they killed them all in the proceeding 6000 years up to 1800's... Some sources:

• http://www.active.visitforestofdean.co.uk/thedms.asp?dms=13&param1=earth&feature=12&venue=1302774&easi=true
• http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/alumni/display/magazine.php?pageId=6&textId=38&pageNo=3
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4833450.stm
• http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/VisitorGuide/TheNationalPark/hottopics/reintroducingextinctspecies.htm
• http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/Confrontations.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

• Delete - Almost certain hoax. No mentions whatsoever on cryptozoology.com. Google brings up no mentions other than Wikipedia & mirror sites plus a few "I read about this on Wikipedia, does anyone know about it?" questions. None of the "sources" listed above refer to this animal, but just to other stories about non-native animals in the UK. Normally I'd say move to Beast of Gloucester - the only cryptid I can find any genuine reports of anywhere near the Forest of Dean - but all sources agree that the BoG was a big cat and not a "moose-pig". - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but without prejudice to recreation of a more general article based on such sources as the BBC magazine. I'd say the subject is probably a confusion or legend, rather than hoax. But given the total lack of sourcing for the details, probably the article is a hoax--though it's been worked on for quite a while by different eds. DGG 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of sources and Google only seems to bring up mirrors/forums Suriel1981 23:50, 31 March 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.