Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Kennel Club


 * 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   delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

National Kennel Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One of many so-called "paper mill" registries -- none, to my knowledge, are notable by Wikipedia standards. I was unable to find any reliable, independent sources. What's in the article now is opinion based on someone's knowledge of the dog community, but an editor's opinion does not an article make. In summary: not notable. Anna talk 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Organized in 1969, this establishment has been around long enough that it is a valid subject for encyclopedic biography, even if it is a "paper mill" as its critics contend. A copiously-sized haystack of Google hits, which is a useful metric for indicating the probable existence of reliable source needles. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is probable existence good enough? I'd argue that it's very, very unlikely, and I have looked in Google Books and Google Search for quite a while. I was under the impression that verifiability was an important policy -- I can understand arguments against notability, but the article as it stands is someone's opinion and I don't know how any independent reliable sourcing is possible here. Anna  talk 20:53, 9 July 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) 00:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - For something that has supposedly been criticized significantly that has also been around as long as it has, I cannot find any third-party sources that discuss anything about the National Kennel Club in any significant way. Most of the Google results point to different pages on the organization's own website or to unrelated organizations. There are no news results. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well, I have a little more time this evening, I'll see what I can see... DifferenceBetween.net explains the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AKC AND NKC, which implies that the latter is the #2 dog registry institution, if you think about it... A so-called "reliable source"? No, but it should give one pause from the get-go... Carrite (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pet Guardian Angels of American INCLUDES THE NKC in its rundown of registry organizations... Carrite (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not wowed by the stuff turning up. I've written to the organization asking for their help in pointing me to independently published articles on the group. Carrite (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back to explain/link to things. I'll note that the first site also includes the differences between AKC and CKC, AKC and ACA, AKC and UKC (which is actually #2 by several metrics and does have a Wikipedia article), and perhaps others. In other words, it simply can't be considered the second-largest, second-most well-known, etc. when looking at hard data. Those articles seem to be more about generating trafficundefined than implying anything, other than the fact that the AKC is far and away the most well-known. It accepts user submissions as well. But then, you seem aware of that so this is for the hopeful benefit of anyone else who reads through this discussion :) Anna  talk 04:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - articles like this bring our Project into disrepute. Essentially it is an unsourced opinion piece. One of the few facts is wrong - the article claims an establishment date of 1969 whereas the NKC website puts it at 1964. The page includes much negative commercially-damaging comment - no problem if correct and reliable sourced but it is not so sourced. On top of this it fails WP:GNG - I can't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm gonna get out of the way on this one. Keep vote stricken. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 19 July 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.