Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appalachian Black Panther

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. The total lack of sources means that this content is inappropriate for a merger per WP:V. Sandstein 04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Black Panther

The topic appears to be unnotable. There are no references establishing notability, and I cannot find any after a web search. Locke9k (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Phantom cat. It's always difficult to find reliable sources for pseudoscientific subjects but the Appalachian Black Panther seems to fit in with the general definition given in the other article and doesn't seem to be notable or different enough to merit an article of its own. Cosmo0 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per cosmo and possibly redirect. fits nicely into that article and doesnt merit its own. untwirl(talk) 19:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, Huey P. Newton does sound like the name of some hillbilly redneck. This is mind-blowing... a totally unsourced article about a legendary creature that has no legends written about it. Mandsford (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To those proposing a merge: could you point out what material you think should be merged? To me, with the total lack of references, none of this material is salvageable and the article thus merits an outright delete. Locke9k (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was going on the fact that the material in the article seemed to fit naturally into Phantom cat. Of course, it still has to meet the threshold for inclusion and if no reliable, third-party references can be found (I can't find any) then it should be removed. I still think it would be worth leaving a redirect to Phantom cat. Cosmo0 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sourcing. AGF aside, there's no reason to believe this isn't somebody's hoax. BusterD (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the article really says is somebody said something might exist. No references are given even for that.Borock (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology. Ladyof Shalott 02:18, 25 April 2009 (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.