Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Speedy delete WP:CSD – recreation with identical content, and WP:CSD – Author requests removal. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tamaskan Dog

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As before, there does not appear to be any documentation of this "breed" in reliable sources. There is not yet a standard of notability for animal breeds, but this breed does not appear to meet any of the criteria that have been proposed: Little appears to have changed from the first nomination, except that some of the claims which were proved false have been removed. Most importantly, there are still no reliable sources documenting the breed's existence. Hence, I don't see any reason this article should have been recreated. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Recognition by a major kennel club or breed registry
 * News coverage
 * Historical importance


 * Clarification The article failed Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog "The result was delete; fails WP:V rather miserably. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 27 November 2006" it was deleted and this AfD is on a recreation of the deleted article. Jeepday 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Strongish Keep: "Breed" not registered by American or British Kennel Clubs, but Ghits indicate (a growing?) interest. Then, of course, we have the Cockapoo and Labradoodle articles. Both of which are non-registered but popular "breeds." Srebob 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)srebob


 * There's a big difference between the Labradoodle and Cockapoo, which are widely recognized by the public and by unofficial sources, and a "new, rare breed of dog" which does not appear to have been independently documented by anyone. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- Please be sure you are excluding wikipedia, its mirrors, blogs, advertising sites, discussion forums, etc. when you check for Ghits. I have seen a copy of the article printed in the small Finnish paper that is cited in the article. There may also have been an article published in the journal Our Dogs that the article's proponent removed for unknown as of yet reasons. Please read the article's talk page where I and some others have asked several questions. Keesiewonder talk 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Keep > Undecided  > Delete and protect from recreation I Did a quick search on Google and came up with multiple hits that would support WP:N none of the hits a saw appeared inherently unreliable. I looked at the history of the page and see multiple poorly manged attempts to delete the article.  If this is the second AfD what is there not a link to archive of the first attempt, if it survived the first why are you re-listing it?  What is the source of the proposed standard of "notability for animal breed"?  I was not aware Wikipedia had one.  Jeepday 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In light to the comment below I am re evaluating my position. I found that the article failed Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog Also a first look for one of the books listed as a reference came up empty.  Jeepday 16:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re evaluation complete, My first impression was incorrect (badly). I attempted to validate the references and was not able to, with one small exception the references had to removed from the article see Talk:Tamaskan_Dog. The first sentence of the article implies that it is fails WP:N "The Tamaskan Dog is a new, rare breed of dog that originates from Mid-Finland.".  As addressed in the prior AfD it fails WP:V "miserably" and it also seems to have significant WP:COI issues So I vote Delete and protect from recreation also there is mention of it on Established wolfdog breeds see Special:Whatlinkshere/Tamaskan_Dog that should also be removed.  Jeepday 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- There is a link to the first attempt, up in the nomination, under the hyperlinked word "before." Ghits, in my opinion, are usually useless. Unfortunately, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia, even more anyones can put up a web site. That is all Google is categorizing. Also, please list either here, on the article's talk page, or in the body of the article itself the "multiple hits that would support WP:N"". I have literally searched for hours and found nearly nothing that I consider useful, except possibly a local interest article written only in Finnish and one other article that I will probably have to pay money for in order to see since no one who wants to keep the article has been able to provide me with a copy. Hmmmmmm. Keesiewonder talk 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I now have access to the web version of Our Dogs, but have not found anything yet. I think they have only posted through January 5, 2007 on their site so far. correction: Actually, they appear to have posted through January 26, 2007. Waiting to hear from article's proponent regarding the page number and date in which the reference appeared. It seems odd that the citation for Our Dogs was removed by the user who wrote the article. Keesiewonder talk 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Original Author Request Delete
 * This statement is on the page Talk:Tamaskan_Dog "I would like the Tamaskan article to be deleted now and don't plan to resurrect it." and signed by the original editor User:Blufawn. This section is added to the AfD page by User:jeepday who has contributed to the discussion and edited the article.  Jeepday 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep maybe this a new breed because you not heard of this does not mean it does not existOo7565 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete again and protect from recreation Contrary to editor Oo7565, the burden is not on us to prove the breed of dogs does not exist. The burden is on those seeking to put the article in Wikipedia to come up with multiple verifiable independent reliable sources which have published articles with this breed of dogs as a primary subject. The article also appears to have conflict of intrest issues.Edison 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Except for the possibility of the cited Finnish article, I have to agree with Edison. I corresponded with the author of the WP article. They did not have a copy of the previously listed resource from Our Dogs, and were not even able to produce the date of the article or its title. For my own curiosity, I will work with these two publishers to see if I can obtain any materials. Regardless, the current article should be deleted. I have to say, per the article's talk page, I'm glad this is something we take way too seriously! Keesiewonder talk 11:00, 29 January 2007 (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.