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. LFaraone 01:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Sheepdog[edit]

Himalayan Sheepdog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem notable enough to merit its own article. The Yahoo Voices and Molosser Dogs sources given are both user-submitted and so not a WP:RELIABLE source. The India Times site looks shifty and rather seo-scrape-like, and the 'Toby needs a home' article linked is on a personal blog. When I followed the link to the Himalayan Sheepdog breed site, it states that their standard is from the Kennel Club of India. It's not on the kennel club's site. In fact, they have no standards of their own, or links to member breed clubs with standards, on the site, unlike every other kennel club. TKK ^{bark !} 11:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: A standard WP:SET doesn't turn up anything except user submitted content and the aforementioned breed website with a suspicious standard on it. --TKK ^{bark !} 11:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds has some material on this and it seems related to the kyi apso which we have at Kinnaur Sheepdog. These are obviously working dogs and so the pedigrees associated with pet and show dogs are irrelevant. See also the amusing anecdote at Three Tibetans in Ireland. It is our policy that we are not "thin-lipped bureaucrats" too. Warden (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Warden. Books can be reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (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.