Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onza


 * 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. John254 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Onza

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No verifiable sources, looks like original research, few Yahoo! hits that match the article content. IUCN lists "Onza" as a Spanish name for the Jaguarundi. Propose Redirecting to Jaguarundi. Tombstone (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't need AfD for a redirect, but keep for now. A Google Books search indicates that there are several sources describing the "Onza" as a cryptozoological cat, which may or may not be identical with the Jaguarundi, a real animal. I suggest conducting a WP:MERGE discussion at a later time if it becomes clear from reliable sources that they are indeed one and the same.  Sandstein   09:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tombstone. It is clear that the article is not backed by factual data.  The article should be deleted or re-written as a fictional reference.Swiftek (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and examine the references to see if merging is best. Scaldi (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I went to post a comment on Scaldi's talk page and found he's been blocked for sockpuppetry. We might like to discount his comment. - Mgm|(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss disambiguation. According to the note near the bottom, the word can refer to two different creatures. Linking to either one would mean the other meaning would get obscured. Also, while the references are not cited inline, the article lists several that mean the article is verifiable unless proven otherwise. - Mgm|(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although one of the books is self published, the American museum of Natural History bought it, and so did the Bronx Zoo. So at least the possibility is discussed academically. DGG (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (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.