Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specs (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]

Specs (creature)

[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 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I explained on its talk page: I think this article, like others created by the same editor is derived from Eberhart, George M. (2002). Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-283-7.. The article has only one citation, that matches the entry on Specs at page 512–513. It follows a similar structure; Etymology, Physical Description, Habitat, Location where the book has Etymology, Physical Description, Habitat, Distribution, Significant sighting, Present status, Possible explanations. The sources listed in the book are listed as follows:
United Press International report, March 12, 1959; “The Ocean Has Them
Too,” Fate 12 (July 1959): 10-11; Karl Shuker, In Search of Prehistoric Survivors (London: Blandford, 1995), pp. 123-126.
The article has: "The Ocean Has Them Too". United Press International Report. 12 March 1959.
What is omitted here is that it was published in Fate (magazine) a source that's about as unreliable as it comes. As for Karl Shuker as a source, he's well known as a cryptozoologist. Vexations (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unencyclopedic nonsense. Fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([1]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question. The author seems unlikely to return. Deb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

i)Notability

The Original referrer of the Specs, United Press International is renowned international news agency and thus is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE and WP:N. Also the source is WP:RS and is availabe for verification satisfying WP:V.

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 artcile 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 cosndier WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

vi) WP:Copyvio

Plagiarism check is accepted norm to detect violation of copyright.

vii) More Sources

There are more sources that can be added in this article,which would have solved the issue of 'Single Mention'.

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 reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be clarified here. UPI's report is not the same as "The Ocean Has Them Too", as the article suggests. These are two distinct sources. The UPI report is from 12 March 1959 and quotes a diver, Bob Wall, who claims to have seen a creature that was about five and a half feet long and three feet high when standing, and had a long, cylindrical body, eight legs, and eyes the size of silver dollars. You can find a copy here: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/29968354/ukiah-daily-journal/. "The Ocean has them too" is an article in Fate (magazine) from July 1959 and is a different source altogether. Vexations (talk) 21:12, 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.