Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gippsland phantom cat
I'm not totally opposed to merging, but since this seems to be a descriptive title, I don't quite see the purpose as it's rarely the term actually used to describe the thing. Keeping in mind that I was almost exclusively looking at self-published websites and tabloids, I did see Australian big cats come up enough that I'm open to the ''small'' possibility that Australian big cats are notable enough for a section in the main Phantom cat article (which I'm not even convinced merits its own article). Most of these things probably should get redirects to List of cryptids with a 1-2 sentence description and no main article. Because the thing I'm seeing with these regional phantom cats (e.g., see also Blue Mountains panther) is that, if they're even covered in independent reliable sources at all, which most aren't, it's never anything close to in depth coverage, so the only thing to say about them is that there's been speculation about sightings, which isn't encyclopedic per . That's how we end up with a Phantom cat article that is literally a list of sightings of non-existent cats that doesn't give the reader any information about the myth, its origin, where it's popular, etc., and basically treats it like it might be a real thing, because that's the only coverage that exists...people claiming to have seen them and sources repeating people's claims to have seen them
— User:Permstrump, 04:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SPECULATION (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)