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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabhar[edit]

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

Article may be a hoax. No proof that this creature exists or that an actual legend exists. Rogermx (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are able to translate this link makes mention of such snake and it's the only one i could find. It's nothing in depth or thorough but this is what i was able to roughly translate " Basilisk comes from a snake egg, Arabhar. I don't know how true that is. Edidiong (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This strongly appears to be a hoax. The link mentioned above appears to be some kind of fantasy book for children, just like beautiful "dragon books" with made-up facts exist. The existence of these books is a nice thing, and I loved reading these as a child, but they are far from being reliable sources for this article. From the book description on Google Play, translated using Google Translator:

For some, the legendary or mythological creatures presented in this book are believed to exist, but can not be proven. Some people think it is extinct and can not be proven in a real way. The rest are creatures of belief, cultural custom, and religion. In addition, not a few of mythological creatures are the product of human imagination in the past, when they have not been able to explain anything.

The original source of the first revision of this article was a Wikia page: http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Arabhar

I can't take this seriously; it might even be worth considering to speedily delete it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of reliable sources WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Knobbly (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of possiblys and maybes and not a good source in existence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2018 (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.