Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog (4th 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   keep. Wizardman 03:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Tamaskan Dog
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Six months after an AfD that was heavily WP:CANVASSED, nothing substantial in this article has changed and there is still almost nothing to establish this breed's notability. Don't get me wrong, they're cool dogs, I just don't think they have a place here. This, this, and this are the only sources i could find that aren't run by breeders themselves.

This, on a (one of about five million) 'official' Tamaskan registries, has very low resolution (so low as to be unreadable - I understand why, but still) scans of articles on the Tamaskan in several magazines; some of them are in German and Dutch. I still have issues with it, though:
 * The Florida Lupine News article is literally a direct copy off a Tamaskan breeders' website.
 * The dutch article looks ok, but I don't speak dutch
 * The article in Hunde appears to be an interview, but I don't speak german and it's too small to see clearly.
 * Three of the articles from DOGS Today (from the UK edition) appear to be an editorial/opinion piece about a man getting a new puppy. The fourth seems OK.
 * The german DOGS Today article, again too small to read so I can't say for sure, appears to be written by breeders involved with Tamaskans.
 * Source 1 and 2 on the page are both primary sources
 * Source 3 is a band website news posting about a photoshoot for the band - I don't know if this is a primary source but it is certainly not independent.
 * Sources 4, 5 and 7 are all for one dog
 * Source 6 is a sketchy looking list of "cute dog breeds"
 * Source 8 is a Facebook video

I'm raising this article at AfD a second time so we can perhaps establish a consensus without an influx of breeders from Tamaskan forums. There have been three previous AfDs, two closed as delete (one as speedy delete) and the most recent, six months ago, closed as Keep. I nominated the most recent AfD.  T K K  bark !  21:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - It was nice of the nominator to provide the full Keep rationale. Closed as a Keep earlier as the subject of multiple, substantial independently published sources. I get that the big dog registries still have not recognized this breed, but that's a special guideline pass, not a general guideline pass. There are Tamaskan breeders, Tamaskan clubs, Tamaskan rescues, etc. It is a breed, or if it is not a breed, there has been sufficient material published about the non-breed to source out a freestanding article. GNG pass, and no I haven't been canvassed. I'm a golden retriever guy.... Carrite (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with Carrite. It has been sufficiently described in published sources as a breed. Arguments by nominators actually do not invalidate most of the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2013 (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.