- 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. LFaraone 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Harpagofuator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no evidence that this genus exists. The only sources online refer back to this page. Yzx (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Like Yzx I did not really find any evidence of its existence except from sources that ultimately lead back to Wikipedia. The only sources I could find was on Yahoo answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110211112338AAzzKKR) and Barnes and Noble (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/sharks-source-source-wikipedia/1104964547). However, the Barnes and Noble site was advertising a Wikipedia book. What further bothers me is that I cannot find the book that is cited on the article. I am beginning to think this is a uninventive hoax. —Σosthenes12 Talk 17:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
The correct spelling of the genus's name is Harpagofutator [1][2]; butsince this article is devoid of any significant treatment of the topic—and since the only "fact" it contains, that Harpagofu[t]ator is an extinct shark, is incorrect (sharks being members of the subclass Elasmobranchii, whereas Harpagofutator belonged to the subclass Holocephali)—it's probably best to delete it and let someone create an actual article at the right spelling. Deor (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, despite the sources I cited above, it appears the real genus name is Harpagofututor (which would indeed be the correct Latin form meaning "grappling-hook fucker"), and we already have an article at Harpagofututor. This should either be deleted as a duplicate article or be redirected there if it's thought to be a plausible misspelling (I don't consider it so myself, which is why I'm leaving my bolded "delete" !vote). Deor (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thanks to nice detective work by Deor, the origin of this article has become clear. I created a redirect from Harpagofutator to Harpagofututor, as that variant spelling is seen on the Internet as well. But I agree that Harpagofuator is a less likely misspelling and we don't need the redirect for it, too. Since the article is the result of a misspelling and the content seems incorrect, best to delete this source of confusion. --Mark viking (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This would almost be a speedy WP:CSD#A10 but the article has been in existence too long for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2013 (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.