Deletion of Lluvia de Peces

Comment: I've taken a few days to sift through the Spanish sources, and have to concur with SteveBaker that, though numerous, they are all of extremely dubious quality. I also had no luck verifying information about the supposed National Geographic expedition, and came to the same conclusion that the sources mentioning it misinterpreted a report about an expedition to Australia. As I said before, this is a classic cases of , none of which contributes anything to the notability of the topic, and even taken together do not represent enough material on which to base a WP article. Still think the article should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)

Comment: No reliable sources, and I couldn't find any with Google searches. The sources used are blogs and tourist guides of extremely dubious reliability. Classic case of , none of which, however, meet our reliability and notability policies and guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)

Comment: There are sources - but most of them are extremely unreliable.  There is little or no fact-checking going on.  For example, many of the sources in Spanish (and all of the English language ones) talk about a 1970's National Geographic expedition to investigate the phenomenon.  This seemed like a good source of information on the topic, so I fact-checked it very carefully.  I discovered that there was no such expedition - although there was a 1974 Nat Geo expedition to Australia to investigate a rain of fishes there.  The original error comes from a field report by some student out on an internship in the area who had vaguely (and, as it turns out, incorrectly) recalled a TV documentary from the "Wild Case Files" series about a Nat Geo expedition to investigate.  This one error has propagated into most of the reports on this subject.  We must conclude, therefore that every single one of the sources that reported the Nat Geo expedition picked up on the words from that field report and '''not one of them''' actually checked that the expedition ever happened (it took me all of five minutes to figure out what happened).  Not one of them was curious enough about the supposed Nat Geo findings to dig out the (non-existent) report from this expedition!?!  So how can we take '''any''' of those sources as "reliable" per ?   Bottom line for me is that there is almost zero reliable information out there and a lot of re-re-re-reported hearsay.  Take for example, the crucial detail of whether the fish blind or not?  This is a critical factor because blind cave fish being brought up from underground water courses during flooding is the most likely explanation...and that's what the real Nat Geo expedition found to have happened in the Australian "rain of fishes" event.  Some reports say "Yes" and some are indecisive - none contain first person reports from people who examined the fish.  It's all hearsay and rumor.  These are not secondary or even tertiary sources - they are worn out by repetition.  How can Wikipedia talk intelligently about what happened without any sources that we can actually trust?  All of this information is from tourist guides and slow-news-day items in dubious online magazines and travel guides.  It will be hard to make an objective article here - so it should be deleted rather than allowing it to peddle information that we cannot rely upon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I found one source in English http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1929039471.html Sunday Observer Sri Lanka December 27, 2009. Others in spanish: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.eluniverso.com/2003/09/14/0001/257/D111707F5E7247CB94F93F86825F4C21.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522un%2Bfen%25C3%25B3meno%2Bnatural%2Bdel%2Bque%2Bse%2Bhan%2Bsentido%2Borgullosos%2Blos%2Bhabitantes%2B%2522%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D883%26prmd%3Dimvnso&sa=X&ei=cXpiUNeSLImW0QHLxYGIDw&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA September 12, 2003http://www.eluniverso.com/2003/09/14/0001/257/D111707F5E7247CB94F93F86825F4C21.html September 12, 2003, http://www.mdzol.com/mdz/nota/201343/ April 5, 2010http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.mdzol.com/mdz/nota/201343/&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Una%2Blluvia%2Bde%2Bpeces%2Bcay%25C3%25B3%2Bel%2Bdomingo%2Bde%2Bun%2B%25C3%25A1rbol%2Bde%2Bmangos%2Ben%2Buna%2B%2522%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D883%26prmd%3Dimvns&sa=X&ei=znpiUJ3KPMW00QHX3YE4&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA April 5, 2010, http://www7.uc.cl/letras/html/6_publicaciones/pdf_revistas/taller/tl47/concepcion_t47.pdfhttp://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www7.uc.cl/letras/html/6_publicaciones/pdf_revistas/taller/tl47/concepcion_t47.pdf&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Una%2Blluvia%2Bde%2Bpeces%2Bcaera%2Bsobre%2Bel%2BReino%2Bde%2Bla%2BMuerte%2522%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D883%26prmd%3Dimvns&sa=X&ei=G3tiULfDLq-u0AGh0oHQDA&ved=0CCAQ7gEwAA. There's probably more information in non English sources to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)