Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoop snake (2nd nomination)

: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 (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoop snake

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

"Hoop Snake" is a synonym for Ouroborus and should be a redirect. The article in its current state reads like a hoax/joke. If you want to add the North American/Australian interpretation of this creature, it should be in the Ouroborus article, just as the Egyptian/Norse/Japanese/Alchemical/Occult, etc. interpretations *all* are. — LiteEei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep appears to be a distinct folklore concept. Artw (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the Egyptian/Norse/Japanese, etc. conecepts of this creature are by definition distinct as well, as each of these cultures described a similar but distinct creature before these cultures ever interacted, and all of these descriptions share the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those are sufficiently distinct to get their own articles then they should have them too. Artw (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a distinct creature. I have known about these since childhood but never related them to the mythical Ouroborus. Borock (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a folklore concept, but addition detail is definitely required for this article. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable (indeed famous), verified, distinct, article has good amount of content.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic - see Hoop Sankes and River Monsters, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I was doing research on dropbears and came upon this very useful, documented article about something with historical significance.Broux (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2015 (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.