Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyle horse


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moyle horse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete Non-notable non-"breed"-- only one source even claims it exists, one person's breeding program, previously deleted article Montanabw (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The previous deletion is irrelevant, as it was for copyright violation, and this is clearly an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article as it has a four-page entry in a print encyclopedia published by a university press. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no "four page entry" I see a four sentence entry on the Okla State Web site that is replicated in Hendricks, which is a single book that is well-known within WPEQ as at best a backup source with many dubious claims in many of its articles...if there are four pages, then please provide link to prove that it isn't all photos.  Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The horse is its own breed, and should qualify for an article.-- SKATER  Speak. 18:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that this is a horse breed, and not simply one person's "I'm calling my crossbred mutt herd a 'breed' " claim? -- I am serious, there is no breed registry, no fixed set of breed characteristics, organizations promoting this "breed," no evidence that this was more than one person's experiment that has not significantly outlived the person who started it. Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not a breed, just one guy's cross-breeding program. No breed registry, no fixed set of characteristics that are dependably passed from generation to generation. Hendricks and OSU are both dubious sources at best, although they may work as back-up sources, they are not dependable for proving that a breed exists. Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. So which are we supposed to believe, unsourced assertions by two pseudonymous Wikipedia editors or an encyclopedia published by the University of Oklahoma Press? I think our guidelines on reliable sources decide that question. I've noticed for some time that there seems to be a very small group (i.e. two) of editors who try to claim ownership of any equine-related articles based on their personal knowledge rather than any examination of reliable sources, and they seem to have turned out here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Phil, that was a blatent personal attack and completely uncalled for! Dana has several FAs and over a dozen GAs, I have my share of the same, and your comments are way out of line.  Our sourcing can be provided as needed and all you have to do is ask.  (But yes, the five or six people most active on WPEQ have some expertise in the field, and two of us (at least) have been published elsewhere).  The book linked below does have more in it than what was out there when this article was previously deleted, but even from the content, can you tell me that this is NOT one person's breeding program?  It says so right in the source.  The "breed' is "rare" because no one else cared to create a breed registry or an organization to preserve the type or anything...I guess I have a hard time with the argument that says "just because it is in one book on breeds (and another I located appears to be almost a verbatim copy of the first) and no others, it has to be a breed?"  I guess if that's the consensus, then it is, but seriously, if I was a great self-promoter and bred two grade horses in my backyard, would I be making a breed too?  Just curious...gee, there's money to be made here...   Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The one reference provided in the article is far from trivial (see the online preview) and qualifies under WP:RS. This said, the lack of recognition of this breed should also be mentioned in the article. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2010 (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.