Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinocaeruleus smithii

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 speedy close. All deleted as blatant hoaxes — foxj 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinocaeruleus smithii

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent (but not blatantly apparent) hoax. None of the references are relevant for this particular "species". —Wasell^(T) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No relevant refs, no relevant search results, probable hoax. jonkerz ♠talk 19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The red lasers affecting "neutron flow polarity" in the Diet section is patent nonsense and has a bogus reference. In fact most of the references are bogus in that they don't verify asserted statements. A search for the species and indeed the genus yielded no non-Wikipedia hits. Nonsense statements, bogus references and a total lack of verifiability all point to this as a likely hoax. --Mark viking (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete species and genus - no refs external to Wikipedia, File:Picrotus thoracicus.jpg is misrepresented as being a member of this fictional genus, sources given just give the illusion of referencing. Only "images" are sketches, and it appears we may have a number of sockpuppets involved. Chris857 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant references, apparent hoax, removal of Afd tag today is suspicious. Donner60 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another apparent hoax articles has now appeared by one of the same users. This is Dinocaeruleus. Although the article also pulls in Dinocaridida as a supposed species, that article appears to be legitimate although most recent edits may need to be rechecked. Donner60 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two more just created by same user: Dinocaeruleus KAwaii and Dinocaeruleus Elliot. Donner60 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, using Special:Prefix, we have in total: Dinocaeruleus , D. KAwaii, D. Pectus, D. vosmateramatlardo, D. Elliot, D. Raxacoricofallapatorius, and D. smithii. P.S. Oh God, it's getting bigger while I type... Chris857 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also D. Lepus, D. Stuprant, D. Chiliconcarne, D. Genitalibus, and D. Dalekanium. Chris857 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 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.