Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mialoa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - thanks for alerting me for the miss of closing it Shoy. --JForget 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mialoa

Mialoa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Possible WP:HOAX or walled garden, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drepandrikidae and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sczoloa. No hits on source which User:Polbot uses to create missing species articles [1]. shoy (words words) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Child articles of this article:
  • Ancient Mialoa
  • Prehistoric Mialoa
  • Modern Mialoa

No G-hits for any outside wikipedia and mirrors.

For comparison, see Lesser Koa Finch, a similar extinct bird. "Rhodacanthis flaviceps" -wikipedia gets 148 GHits, and "Lesser Koa Finch" -wikipedia gets 186. I would say 0 Ghits for a supposed binomial name is a bit suspicious, to say the least. shoy (words words) 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep We could throwing away Wikipedia content here. I think we need to keep all these articles on Wikipedia, until we get a bird expert to examine the articles. The rarity of certain bird species means that only a handful of ornithologists may know about this species. We need to keep, until we get a definative answer. scope_creep (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Drive to extinction, sorry, delete the lot. Speedily if possible. Hoax, albeit a clever one. Even extremely unknown bird species generate a hit or fifty on google. Web of Science found nothing, and as a PhD student of Pacific birds it's afe to say that this is not something we want around. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I'm not a bird-guy, but rather an invertebrate zoologist. Nonetheless, this certainly is a super good hoax if it's a hoax. As already noted, there is a severe shortage of outside reference material related to Mialoa, which is strange. I did find several refs via Google, though, although the name seems also to be a Polish word so there are many non-meaningful ones as well. The beast really does seem to exist. Notably, the article's author has been doing perfectly respectable seeming bird article for a while. Tim Ross (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Care to share those sources with us? I certainly didn't find any, as you can see. shoy (words words) 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Response Sure. Here's what I ran across: World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth's Living Resources in the 21st Century by Brian Groombridge, Martin Jenkins and The W2N.net Wikipedia: Hawaiian honeycreeper. These may not be too impressive, but they do show some recognition for the name. Note that I didn't actually search to see what they had to say. Tim Ross (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The second one is a mirror of the Wikipedia page Hawaiian honeycreeper, a different subfamily (which incidentially gets 12000, indication that real birds do exist on Google)... Can you point out where in the first one the bird is mentioned? Thue | talk 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Google Books says it shows up here, but all I see is a highlighted spot on a blank page. Anyone else care to confirm? shoy (words words) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing does not exist. Search Hawaiian Honeycreepers by Douglas Pratt, the definitive treatment of the family. Doesn't generate a single hit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Probable hoax. Doesn't show up on [8] Mdmkolbe (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Doesn't seem to be a bird that has ever existed, but if it has existed, it should be kept, however, merged into one article about Mialoa. If this is a hoax, it's probably a stupid hoax since I don't see what anyone could gain from creating an article like this. In any case, if it is a hoax, the creator of the article, Barati11 (talk · contribs) should be contacted and given a warning for creating fake articles on Wikipedia. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I too looked at the on-line World Atlas of Biodiversity. Google Books has what seems to be another copy of the same book (same ISBN) here, and it doesn't contain "Mialoa". Also, the hit at the copy that does contain "Mialoa" shows it with a ` that doesn't make sense (‘Mialoa). I strongly suspect it's an OCR error for 'Akialoa. So I don't think we've got any valid hits at all, including in places where, as Sabine's Sunbird pointed out, we would expect it. It would be nice if someone could find a copy of that book, but I'm not in any doubt. —JerryFriedman (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, seems to be a pointless hoax. RMHED (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; obvious hoax and not a very good one, no doubts whatsoever.Maias (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be delighted to change my recommended "Strong Keep" (above) to a "Delete" if someone who knows about birds will look at some of Barati11's many artiicles relating to Hawaiian ornithology to see if he has been perpetuating numerous hoaxes, or has just decided to behave very uncharacteristically in several recent instances. His record does not really look like that of a hoaxer, especially in what I must assume is his own field. Tim Ross (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The topic is under discussion here. Shyamal (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thue has indef-blocked the article creator and his apparent sockpuppet, see here. shoy (words words) 13:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no info is better than untraceable info. Shyamal (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely no evidence that these species ever existed. Also check my comments on the claimed names here, as they clearly were made up by someone without knowledge of even the most basic rules involved in naming new taxa (such as species, and, in this case, even the subfamily!). Rabo3 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - ditto to Maias, an obvious hoax and not a very good one. One clear give-away is the use of imperial units, not SI units; no scientist would use them in describing a genuine species - MPF (talk) 20:41, 20 November 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.