Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Progressive Dog Breeders' Alliance


 * 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

International Progressive Dog Breeders' Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As far as I can tell, this falls into the same category as World Wide Kennel Club and National Kennel Club. Aside from a mention on the Mountain View Cur Association homepage, since it's a charter, no reliable sources cover this organization at all and I don't think it can be considered noteworthy otherwise. Isolate the relevant info, look at the sources, and you'll see that there's very little behind this. Anna (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Wikipedia has become the resource of first resort for most computer users. This article provides a quick source of data about the IPDBA, and readers can see how it is sourced and decide for themselves how much credence they wish to give those sources. Otherwise, they are left to flounder through the internet, re-inventing the wheel.  If a source can be found expressing Anna's opinion of the IPDBA, that source could be added.  I am no advocate for the IPDBA; only for people trying to check them out who may need Wikpedia as a first step. See the "Context" section which objectively and neutrally points out the differences between the IPDBA and clubs such as the AKC.  Also, Anna, the World Wide Kennel Club and National Kennel Club you cite have been removed, so I don't know what you mean by "falls into the same category" -- I don't know what I'm missing. -- LisaSmall T/ C  14:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominated this because it seems to breach the policies/guidelines WP:V and WP:N. Verifiability is a requirement, and notability is important as well, though there are some exceptions. I don't have an opinion on the organization itself other than noting its similarities to those organizations (the AfDs are linked from the deletion log when you visit the pages), and I don't think you're an advocate, but I can't see how it fits the requirements for an article on Wikipedia. It lacks reliable sources, and there's really no way around that, is there? Anna (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If the organization has some stature / geographic reach / size / notability, then this would be a useful article. But it has zero references, (and 2 of the 4 external links are dead, one to an unregistered domain)  and does not even have info or claims regarding stature / geographic reach / size / notability. I'd say give it a couple weeks for the editors to add some of the above if it exists. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2011 (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.