Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aploximodoais
regarding the most recently added "source".  It is no better than the rest.  Although "Nathan ben Saddi"'s ''Chronicle of the Kings of England'' is a real work (albeit published after the 1739 date given), the quoted text is mysteriously elusive.  Despite the fact that this public domain work is readily available online, these two Google searches for distinctive phrases from the purported quote return nothing at all.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2B%22John+Dyer%22+%2B%22abundant+in+poetic+imagery%22http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2B%22personifying+of+beasts%22  In fact, Google shows no intersection at all between that work and John Dyer.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2B%22John+Dyer%22+%2B%22Chronicles+of+the+Kings+of+England%22  It bears note that the only non-blog (and only 2 or 3 of those!), non-mirror use of this word I've been able to find anywhere is from a USENET post ''citing WP content''.http://groups.google.fr/group/news.software.readers/msg/1376dd47f6b7c845?hl=fr  Any effort to demonstrate that this word has ever been used, in any legitimate source, anywhere, is going to require a precise reference.  "Unsure" sources, "unpublished manuscripts", and "sensitive materials" somewhere in a library (especially ones that cannot be scanned or photographed and that no other scholars seem to have heard of) simply do not meet the needs of Wikipedia's policy on |verifiable content from |reliable sources
— User:Serpent, 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Verifiability)