Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Foxhound Association


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to English Foxhound. In my time working in AFDLand, this is one of the least likely articles I would expect would generate talk of political conspiracies, accusations of being a cat lover or comparisons with Hitler. The important factor in determining AFD closures is policy and consensus and right now, the rough consensus is that this article subject does not have significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources to warrant a stand-alone article. This is the important factor, not upcoming elections or hidden conflict-of-interests and this is generally how AFD discussions are closed no matter what the article subject is. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

International Foxhound Association

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:PROD removed by IP on grounds that "‎IFA is currently very important to secure the Foxhound as a breed in the current fight against the Labor manifesto for this July UK election". Struggling to find evidence this organisation even exists. It certainly has nothing to meet WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Australia,  and Canada.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Not one gnews hit. Fails GNG completely. LibStar (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with English Foxhound: The group is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article about the breed of dog it promotes. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; the references generally don't mention the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to English Foxhound per ATD and CHEAP. The subject is mentioned at the target so delete is off the table. Not convinced more of this content is needed at the target, also given valid concerns by the delete sayers, so merge isn't the correct resolution either. Hence this defaults to redirect. gidonb (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete There is, to be blunt, nothing to merge, and nothing to suggest that mentioning it in the breed article would be WP:DUE. The main evidence we have for its existence is an entry in the French associations register (which is obliquely referenced by the third party listing in the article). There is also a brief mention at a French hunting website which states the organisation intended to run events in 2016 ; the fact there is zero coverage of this suggests that this organisation exists on paper at best. At this time does not come close to meeting GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The only sources I could find that covered it was this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6577333/German-prince-moved-UK-marry-Englishwoman-killed-falling-horse-race.html and I doubt a Dailymail exception will occur here. There is supposed to be a mention in this: https://www.scribd.com/document/367228678/TField-June-2016-pdf but I cannot find it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thus Delete and RM the mention at English Foxhound, if there is no secondary coverage of the organisation then what is presented has to be original research, and is also undue. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to English Foxhound. Nothing to merge.  I've done what passes for a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing of value. Certainly the article doesn't cite any substantial coverage - some links are broken, others don't mention the subject, and others don't pass reliable-source. Oblivy (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Trial hunting has saved the English foxhounds from total extermination. This Wikipedia entry has never been flagged in the past eight years. Why now just before the election? This is very suspicious. Such deletion is obviously politically motivated. COI should be disclosed by the person who did push for deletion and all other based in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ‘’’keep’’’There are three reliable references (Dailymirror, Covertside and the French official government website) with clear mention of IFA. This is sufficient to keep this entry in Wikipedia. On June 2 I met one of IFA leaders in Montlucon at the occasion of the French national dog show. Leaflets were distributed to support the foxhound as a working breed. I find very strange that this deletion call comes exactly two days after the publication of the Labor manisfesto in the UK - The Labor party plans to ban trail hunting which does use foxhounds running along a trail as alternative to foxhunting.


 * The Dailymail isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The French government site you refer just shows it exists as a company, but verifiability is not notability. The Covertside magazine might confer notability but you would need to provide a way for people to see it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Covertside has been fixed with an archive link. It's a newsletter/blog-type article published by a foxhounding association (not very RS) and doesn't mention the article subject. Doesn't move the needle on notability. Oblivy (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This page is written to request COI declaration from Traumnovele and AusLondoner. Traumnovele is obviously a CAT lover from his own page and therefore not so keen on the foxhound. Do you want to be responsible for killing thousands of foxhounds? IFA is a front fighter to save the foxhound from extermination in the UK. AusLondoner and a couple of other bloggers are involved with labor fights from a Corbynist angle according to their own pages. Labor manifesto published two weeks ago is clear: total ban of trail hunting. Push to delete IFA entry is conducive to eliminating opposition. Wikipedia should not be used against freedom of speech. Many entries represent anti- hunting ideas in Wikipedia. Just a few does represent the pro hunting side. Hitler eliminated opposition when coming to power in 1933. Is Wikipedia now following the same Nazi methodology !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference 2 now fixed with clear mention of IFA (in French). Note that Dailymail is a perfectly reliable source used extensively by Wikipedia. Covertside article does clearly mention the creation of IFA at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.171.20 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you could quote the language from Covertside which you believe mentions the article subject. It says obliquely that there's an effort to "raise a groundswell" to create an international group, without mentioning "International Foxhound Association". Even that is just a mention, not significant coverage. Oblivy (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

‘’’keep’’’ The last paragraph of the Covertside article clearly mention the launch of an ‘international association to promote the Foxhound’ This cannot be more relevant. Then it does describe exactly the structure, organisation and purpose of the International Foxhound Association. Reference 2 is a fourth reliable source very well known in France ‘Chassons.com’ (in extra of the Dailymail, Covertside and the French government registry of association). I feel there is bad faith here with you trying to delete a page for absolutely no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.10.176 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.