 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
This page is useles. One BBC article as a source? Seeing as the Burrunjor page was deleted, and it had far more sources, this article should been deleted swiftly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.78.45 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. it has a reletaivly large amount of information for a lesser known cryptid. and it has an dinosaur like discription, a feaure commen to many cryptids in that area. I suggest that it be moved into a list of simaler, dinosaur like, lesser knwon cryptids of the african jungle. 71.75.237.194 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
~ Too add to what your saying not only does it have a large amount of information but the expedition found out that everything we though about the creature was wrong and that it can be found in numerous books which they didn't give any names of with other unknown animals in it and the park rangers wouldn't even take them into the area of were the creature was reported too live so much more needs to be found out on this creature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)