Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaquaru (creature)

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 delete. Sandstein 10:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaquaru (creature)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no indication from WP:BEFORE that any amount of expansion or restructuring will change this. If anyone feels strongly otherwise, I would support Draftify. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article cites Martin Dobrizhoffer's book Historia de Abiponibus equestri bellicosaque Paraguariae natione (in Latin), and gives no page number (as do some contemporary sources that mention the animal). That's unfortunate, because there is an easily accessible English translation, where we find the entry on THE YGUARÒ, OR WATER-TIGER on page 300. The latin version is available here. Faulkner's account of what he calls the yaquaru or yaquaruigh is available at [1] on page 62. I had not been able to locate Basaldua, F (1900). Monstruos Argentinos. Worldcat says the Natural History Museum has a copy. [2]. It took me a while to realize that this citation is incomplete. It's not a book, but an article that appeared in a magazine, Caras y Caretas in volume 32 from 13 May 1899. I did find contemporary source that describes the publication of that article [3] and provides quite a bit of context, but concludes: "Creaba, también,al nuevo continente de ficción para una narrativa menos apegada a laverdad referencial que al descubrimiento de lo extraordinario". In other words; it is a spectacularly unsuitable source for a Wikipedia article, like Dobrizhoffer and Faulkner. Vexations (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([4]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

i)Notability

The Original referrer of the Yaquaru, Falkner is a notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book and having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. (also in same way, Dobrizhoffer is notable along with his work.)

ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

iii) WP:BEFORE

Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.

iv) Alternative of Deletion

The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.

v) Good Faith and New Comer

Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to the present block, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2020 (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.