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. Sr 13 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gondola spider

[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, no verifiable information located TeaDrinker 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Spider that feeds on small birds, please. Herostratus 19:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about this article myself, but the Goliath birdeater does exist. Zagalejo 19:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does appear that this article is a hoax. The unexplained-mysteries.com thread used as a source ended in August 2006, before the discovery of this alleged spider. Delete. Zagalejo 20:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An anon claims to have found a reference to it in a Swedish newspaper, but has not provided more than a blurry photo (!) of part of the headline. See User talk:84.217.175.29 and/or User_talk:TeaDrinker#RE:_Gondola_Spider. --TeaDrinker 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add I ran the latin name through BIOSIS (a database of biology publications) as well as the Ohmdahl with no luck (nothing in google scholar either). While perhaps the actual publication of the species identification would be difficult to find, it is surprising (although not unheard of) to find a scholar with absolutely no publication record. --TeaDrinker 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utter rampant cobblers. The tarantulas are not native to Italy (what they call a tarantula is a much smaller true spider); the genus given to it (Brachypelma) does not list this one; the two external links are spurious - one is a forum thread (which doesn't even mention it) and the other is about a spider in a sandpit, which turned out to be a rubber one. But hey, it was in Germany, so that nearly counts as Italy, right? Totnesmartin 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utter balls. Totnesmartin already found the same thing I found. Would this constitute vandalism? Pretty please, with sugar on top? I wanna speedy this.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks unless reliable sources are provided. Someguy1221 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No evidence and irrelevant sources. I also wasted some time searching. PrimeHunter 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Stoic atarian 22:23, 6 June 2007 (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.