Okay - I have done some editting of of both of these articles so that they make more sense in terms of their English usage.
I have added to chupacabras an English heading referring the etymology to the Spanish definition in the same article. The term chupacabras is used in English in cryptozoology and other fortean subject matter pertaining to this particular cryptid. It is derived from the Spanish el chupacabras (maculine singular) and not the term los chupacabras (masculine plural).
The English crytozoological term chupacabra comes from a mistaken identification of (el) chupacabras as a plural when in fact it is not. However this is heavily disputed in cytozoology circles and it is widely accepted by many that the terms chupacabra and chupacabras are now interchangable. Whether we it or not its the way in which these two terms are used.--Williamsayers79 10:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Technically we would need three citations for chupacabra#English and chupacabras#Spanish, but I don't understand the nomination. Hippietrail admits to seeing a misanalysis of "chupacabras" as plural rather than singular, which means that (1) "chupacabra" exists in use, misanalysis or not, and (2) "chupacabras" exists, and so where would it come from if not Spanish? DAVilla 13:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The Skeptics Dictionary lists chupacabra in a singular sense, and quotes chupacabras used as a plural.--Dmol 15:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Both terms are used and I think we should keep both from sounds of this. Both are used a singular in English, only chupacabras is used as plural in English.--Williamsayers79 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The plural chupacabrases seems to get plenty of Google hits as well... Widsith 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I only got 23 google hits, including duplicate pages, which is a minuscule number. The ones in Spanish with this spelling are all typos for "chupacabrases". I think this as an English plural is in the same class as the jocular phenonmenona. —Stephen 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
ForteanTimes Magazine FT199 August 2005, editorial on page 02
ForteanTimes Magazine FT201 September 2005, letters page 71
These references relate to the whole Chupacabra vs Chupacabras debate and pretty much state the view that both terms are used.
Do you think we can pass both these terms now?--Williamsayers79 19:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you've already called it. RfV removed. DAVilla 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)