Talk:Rhinoceros dolphin: Difference between revisions
→Fictional: new section |
→Justification for deletion: new section |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Is this made up. Really? Is this notable anyway? [[User:Outback the koala|Outback the koala]] ([[User talk:Outback the koala|talk]]) 06:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
Is this made up. Really? Is this notable anyway? [[User:Outback the koala|Outback the koala]] ([[User talk:Outback the koala|talk]]) 06:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Justification for deletion == |
|||
My justification for nominating this article for deletion is thus: '''Why should Wikipedia have an article about an imaginary species whose claims to notability are a self-published Angelfire website and an appearance in a fictional cartoon show? Prod was removed because "theres a source", presumably referring to the self-published Angelfire website.''' [[Special:Contributions/63.104.174.146|63.104.174.146]] ([[User talk:63.104.174.146|talk]]) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:48, 6 April 2011
Cryptozoology Redirect‑class | |||||||
|
Cetaceans (inactive) | ||||
|
Picture
That is absolutely the worst picture I've ever seen on Wikipedia.
Paint strikes again, thanks Microsoft. And whoever made it calls themselves an artist, haha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.84.157 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It is obviously just a common dolphin. Isn't it?--PiKaPi talk blog 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Fictional
Is this made up. Really? Is this notable anyway? Outback the koala (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Justification for deletion
My justification for nominating this article for deletion is thus: Why should Wikipedia have an article about an imaginary species whose claims to notability are a self-published Angelfire website and an appearance in a fictional cartoon show? Prod was removed because "theres a source", presumably referring to the self-published Angelfire website. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)