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. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tamaskan Dog (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)

There has been a brief discussion here about this article, also Utonagan and Northern Inuit Dog. Utonagan is already at AfD and I'm also tagging Northern Inuit Dog now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also now checked through the previous AfDs for this article, which I hadn't been aware of when I initiated this nomination. I feel in the time elapsed, if this was a bonafide 'breed' it would have had sufficient time to have been recognised in some form by at least a basic established registry or to have secured more reliable references. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, it's own association recognizes it. That means absolutely nothing. A lot of that argument of yours fails WP:CRYSTAL, and relies on primary sources, individual dogs and forums... no useful sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying that the British Veterinary Association (BVA), the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), Scidera, Dogs Today magazine and countless American newspapers that cite the breed in recent articles are not 'useful' sources to establish the breed's notoriety? Sylvaen (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know we cannot access the Dogs Today article without an account on your forums, which does nothing for suspicions that the article is, for example, simply faked by your organization. Can you provide a link to an outside source? A quick spin around the magazine website itself doesn't bolster my confidence about its reliability, either.
The other problem is that all the sources you cited will recognize pretty much anything presented to it as a breed and if they source back to TDR it kind of defeats the point. --Tikuko 17:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT It also seems to me that you might have extremely close ties with TDR, considering you breed the dogs yourself, which might invalidate your entire argument as trying to protect the crossbreed so you can profit off it (or whatever motives might be behind that). --Tikuko 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am saying that those aren't useful - all those organisations do not have them as an official breed. There are very few sources I've seen anywhere that don't talk about one dog or another specifically; pretty much all sources you've shown are either not reliable enough, and any on a single dog fail WP:INHERIT. I like the look of the dogs, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for an article. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a trusted information portal, Wikipedia is a key resource, and generally the first port of call for many interested in finding out more on ANY topic.
The largest pet insurance provider in the world [2] specifically lists the Tamaskan as a "named breed" that they insure. [3]
Wikipedia's own definition of "Dog Breed" states ''Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs. A dog breed is represented by a sufficient number of individuals to stably transfer its specific characteristics over generations. Dogs of same breed have similar characteristics of appearance and behavior, primarily because they come from a select set of ancestors who had the same characteristics.[3] Dogs of a specific breed breed true, producing young closely similar to the parents. An individual dog is identified as a member of a breed through proof of ancestry, using genetic analysis or written records of ancestry." [4].
The Tamaskan Breed and the Breed Club (TDR) conform to this definition to the letter. By this definition there is no requirement for a breed to be recognized by any other authority other than its own established breed club, therefore the citation of not having recognition as the basis for deletion is unfounded. Furthermore, there are 6 Established National clubs, which are run as separate concerns outside the function of the TDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.142.150 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — 94.8.142.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Let's take this apart piece by piece, mister SPA IP. The number of searches for something on Google has no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia. What a pet insurance provider does or does not do doesn't affect notability one jot. The Tamaskan breed is yet to be fully "defined" as a set of characteristics, for if it had, it would be recognized fully and officially by at least one notable dog organization. Besides, the Dog Breed page is not a WP guideline by any stretch of the imagination. Any sources that stem directly from the TDR fail WP:V as they are either Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. The number of national clubs for the dog is irrelevant, plus you have no sources whatsoever to back up your claims. The breed fails WP:GNG under my own and other WP editor's researches, as everything either fails WP:V, WP:INHERIT (articles about a single dog, not about the breed itself), and possibly other guidelines as well. The fact your forum(s) form SPA accounts and are acting as SPA IP editors says enough, really. And I'm not against the breed in any way - as mentioned before, I like the look of them, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid ground for an article. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is something that is "worthy of note". There is a claim that this Article has no notability, however there are 22,200 searches on a monthly basis by people searching for information on which the Article pertains. This by definition is therefore Notable in the General use of the term. Google is being used here as reference to the Notability of the subject matter to which the Article pertains, therefore I challenge the view that there is no relevance. The Tamaskan Breed has a defined Breed Standard and as such a set of characteristics that "define" the Breed[5]. The Breed stud books are still open and "recognition" by external organisations have not been sought yet. This will come in due course. Reference to the WP Dog Breed page was used to demonstrate the WP accepted standard for what the WP community defines as a "Dog Breed". To which the reference still stands and demonstrates the point in question. For Avoidance of Doubt and contrary to your comments, I am not affiliated with the TDR, nor represent them or their forum. I am a SPA by definition, as this is a subject that I feel I can add a voice to. On a personal note, I do not understand why anyone would want to remove the Article unless they had some sort of personal Agenda. The Tamaskan is a new designer dog breed, as are many many other. The information on the Page, is informative and does not interfere with any other subject outside of its core. It is a Niche community at present, and they are trying to grow awareness. An Encyclopedia, is a reference portal for those seeking knowledge and understanding on a subject they are researching. The Tamaskan is a breed of dog with approx 400 registrations held in a central database and managed by an international community. It exists. It is not a made up word, name, or Breed. Several Primary and Tertiary references have already been given as to the validity of the subject matter in the Article. 94.8.142.150 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said it was a made-up breed. The fact is, once again, your argument is clearly failing WP:CRYSTAL. Google search counts mean nothing whatsoever, due to the large amount of bots and things that also search through Google. You pretty much contradict yourself by saying the breed has been defined and yet the books are still open. 400 registrations (once again, a completely unreferenced number there) is hardly a large number, nor does it confer notability. I've already refuted your point about references - they pretty much all fail WP:INHERIT or WP:V. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Tamaskan Breed has a defined Breed Standard". The Tamaskan as a Breed is still in development and out-crosses are still being considered to improve the consistency of offspring meeting the Breed Standard hence why the stud books are still open. It is not my intention, nor i believe the purpose of the Afd process to spend time and energy arguing Semantics with people who have an agenda. The essence of my comments are clear, and apologies if my comments don't meet WP:GPGWP:CRYSTALWP:INHERITWP:XYZ. I am not a wiki librarian and these are unknown to me. I am interested in making my POV known and adding constructive discussion to the process. Decontruct and misdirect as much as you want. It is clear your comments are borne from agenda, rather than constructive discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.142.150 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no agenda whatsoever, other than to see Wikipedia improved - besides, did you miss the bit I wrote twice about actually liking the dogs? For an article to be valid, it needs to pass the relevant guidelines, hence why I've cited them regularly in my comments. I would like to point out once again that you say the breed has a defined standard, and yet it is still in development - the fact it is still in development means that it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on the breed. The fact is, the article has been twice deleted in the past, and yet there appears to have been no progress whatsoever with sources and such - the fact that searching for the Tamaskan on Google brings up a whole host of primary websites, with no reliable secondary ones in there, bar a questionable-looking Dogbreedinfo page (Wikipedia and Facebook don't count as reliable sources), says enough about its general notability, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A breed standard (also called bench standard) in animal fancy and animal husbandry is a set of guidelines which is used to ensure that the animals produced by a breeder or breeding facility conform to the specifics of the breed.". Development is the actions by which the standard is attained. The Standard is a Goal. 94.8.142.150 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thus confirming there is no standard as of yet, so this article fails either WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is frustrating. I'm not really sure how else to explain it so that you will understand. The Breed Standard exists. The Standard is the guidelines by which the Breed conforms and aspires to. Development is the means by which out-crosses, when/if approved help the Breed maintain and or more closely and consistently meet the set standard. 94.8.142.150 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could well be moved back into the creator's sandbox, that would be one solution. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability is not inherited, that's the entire point of that guideline. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think we should delete the article just because it's turned into a battleground for two competing registries. Yes, there's a lot of edit warring inclusion/exclusion of one registry or the other. It's probably best for the reader and for the article to note that there are two registries out there—and that neither of them yet has formal recognition from the major kennel clubs. If the effort spent on that were spent on expanding the article with secondary sources, we'd probably have a strong article and wouldn't need to have this discussion today. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing notable about a breed-in-progress just for that reason. Having numerous communities/forums/breeders is not a grounds for something being notable. The sources everywhere are either primary, or about a single dog that happens to be a Tamaskan - I've struggled to find anything on the breed itself. The influx of SPAs here, including you, does not help. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the article is being held up to impossible standards. My complaint is with those standards, not necessarily with the specific circumstances of the Tamaskan registry conflicts. Also I don't see the relevance of the age of my account. Is that attack not a red herring and/or ad hominem? I stand with my "Keep" vote. I can't argue within the confines of Wikipedia's standards, just as a dumb user that would lose a web page that I find useful. Noxbird (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Tamaskans are mentioned here with a third party reference here. Noxbird (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I'm Neutral, in light of the comments below. My judgement may have been clouded by the fact that I really want one of these dogs. TheBlueCanoe 03:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stated ‘dubious’ references because I do not feel the references meet WP:RS. Within a few hours of the AfD, additional references were added despite the editor having been previously informed they were not considered reliable - see [3]. The references have also been questioned at length on the Talk page.
There are presently 18 references on the article: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are all to one or other of the two (opposing) TDR sites; 3 and 7 are to [4], a WP:SPS; 9 does not even mention a Tamaskan; ten through to eighteen are all for one dog and are predominantly facebook, forums etc so again not WP:RS and this would also come under WP:INHERIT - there is even doubt as to whether the dog is a Tamaskan[5], it seems it is accepted just because the TDR state it’s a Tamaskan.
Then we have a list of publications, without any indication as to why they are being listed. I have searched through the Dogs Today site and been unsuccessful in finding the articles referred to. The Florida Lupine News article is written by the TDR so is not an independent source.
So to summarize (in my opinion): the article fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS - just because WP:ITEXISTS does not make it notable.
SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 27 December 2012 (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.
  1. ^ https://adwords.google.com
  2. ^ hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petplan_USA
  3. ^ http://www.petplan.co.uk
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed
  5. ^ http://tamaskan-dog.org.uk/breed-info
  6. ^ http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo
More