Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minhocão (legendary 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 keep. Consensus is that the subject meets WP:GNG. "Page appearing weird" is not a valid deletion rationale per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Minhocão (legendary creature)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG; could not find any non-fringe sources to support notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP Sourcing is plentiful: 1 2. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Listverse.com is made up of user-submitted lists, a marginal source at best. Catalan Review, however, seems to be a reliable source for the folklore. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some popular culture 'weird stuff' type sources discusses it, e.g., , which may not be suitable sources on which to base an article, but there are some older sources from over quite a range of years that I think are harder to dismiss as usable sources, although none of course are evidence that the creature ever existed, e.g. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, The Popular Science Monthly, Nature, Chambers's Journal, Harper's Weekly''. I think this one probably falls into the category of local folklore that early naturalist-explorers investigated, and which later became of interest to cryptozoologists. --Michig (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Century-old publications are primary sources. They would need to be supplemented by reliable secondary sources that represent current viewpoints; an article can't be written entirely from a 19th-century perspective. –dlthewave ☎ 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Page appears weird. Fails WP:GNGMgbo120 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the sources I identified above, there are over 20 articles in British newspapers from the 1870s and 1880s discussing the Minhocão and attempts to find it. It seems to be a significant topic of Brazillian folklore if nothing else. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Rewritten using the available sources, none of which are fringe publications. I think notability is now clear. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rewritten version appears to satisfy WP:GNG (sources are plentiful, and the ones I can access make non-trivial mentions), though I would prefer if more open-access sources could be provided. ComplexRational (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Before the rewrite I would have said delete, but now the article is much better. Tommy has a great username (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be well sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.