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. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zamonian wolpertinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I had speedy tags on this twice, but I removed them after enough context was given and assured me that it was not nonsense, then I put a prod on it but the prod was contested. My concern with the prod remains: this article fails WP:FICT and WP:V, negligible Google hits. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's not notable enough to have it's own article. Perhaps the information could be merged into one of the books' articles. The creation of a Zamonia article wouldn't necessarily be amiss, either, but the wolpertinger is not itself worthy of a separate article. Guinness (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, the mention in wolpertinger is enough, though it needs to be sourced. - Cenarium (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:FICT clearly. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.