Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of beagle, harrier and basset packs of the United Kingdom


 * 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. Very surprisingly, but there you are. Woof?  Sandstein  17:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

List of beagle, harrier and basset packs of the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List of non-notable subjects. The general concept of pack hunting is obviously notable, but listing the individual packs is not necessary or essential in understanding or explaining that concept. Fram (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep These are quite historic institutions and just need work. I have made a start and have little difficulty finding sources as hunting was a popular sport in its day. Andrew D. (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that one primary source and one unlinked newspaper article with unknown contents and unclear title you added? Fram (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more than that out there and so it takes time to produces pages about the topic as there are so many interesting scents to follow. Anyway, for a source which demonstrates quite clearly that the topic passes WP:LISTN, please see Bryden's Hare-hunting and Harriers.  This is a book of hundreds of pages including Appendix D which is a list of beagle packs.  Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:ATD editing to improve the page is preferable to deletion and efforts are being made to do just that. Better to welcome and encourage improvements than to reject them for not yet being sufficient. Markpackuk (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Improperly named article, non notable subject. No refs. Borderline hoax. Szzuk (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the name. The topic is notable (demonstrated above).  The page has refs.  It's obviously not a hoax.  None of the points made in this !vote seem accurate.   To further confirm this, I have just added a reference for the first entry in the list; it was easy.  Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is garbage. I'm not arguing over its merits. Szzuk (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Szzuk's position is WP:RUBBISH and so should be discounted. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Label and dismiss is an attempt to discredit valid points, none of which were refuted. Tapered (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete A simple run through of the possible references in the various links provided shows ZERO reliable sources. No reliable sources are cited in the article itself. No justification for its continued presence. Tapered (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments A search of The Independent website (for the only possible reliable source cited) using the title and date didn't produce a match. On another note, the sister page to this, List of foxhound packs of the United Kingdom, is also a strong candidate for the axe. Tapered (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found the Independent story mentioned on its website and updated the reference on the page to include a link to the web address for it. Markpackuk (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work, but that in no way buttresses this article's existence. If THAT's the best reference, the shutes are greased for deletion. Tapered (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't the best reference. I demonstrated a better reference in the discussion above - Bryden's Hare-hunting and Harriers - with Notices of Beagles and Basset Hounds.  That's a book of 436 pages including a specific list of beagle packs and so is ample for our purposes.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It shows the packs exist, perhaps, but it's a specialist reference manual that by itself doesn't approach conferring WP:N. That requires some sort of notice by a significant reliable source, which hasn't so far been provided--"if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I repeat--the shutes are greased. Tapered (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SIGCOV, a significant source "addresses the topic directly and in detail and so Bryden's book is an excellent source for our purposes. Tapered's dismissal of "specialist reference manuals" seems absurd but it is, in any case, easy to find more sources such as The Field or the Encyclopaedia of Rural Sports''. Andrew D. (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I was too dismissive of Bryden, and The Field is a WP:RS. Nice work, again! Tapered (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Bryden's book is independent of the subject, and The Field (mentioned above by Andrew Davidson) is a WP:RS after 163 years in print. List meets WP:N. Tapered (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I strongly oppose deleting the content of this page. The subject matter may not be interesting to all and the article does need some work but it is worthy of article status. I would however be supportive of a merger of this page's content with that of List of foxhound packs of the United Kingdom into a new page with a name like List of packhound packs of the United Kingdom, this would allow the inclusion of Bloodhound, Draghound and Minkhound packs. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2015 (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.