Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himalayan Sheepdog

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. Singularity 02:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Sheepdog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete unsourced article about a dog breed with nothing explaining why this breed is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sourcing, as nom says. I also can't find any mention of the breed via the AKC Website, and I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for information about the breed. (Although if someone can find some, then keep, by all means). Bfigura ^(talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No refs or content to tell me why this is notable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at 73k ghits, sounds notable to me. JJL (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would say merge into Sheepdog, but one look at the article and I went "Uh, no." That and it fails WP:N, with no references. Kimu 01:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The dog's notability is established through the sources. As mentioned by JJL, after a quick search I found sources here, here, here, here, and here just for starters. As we have articles on virtually all dogs, why should we exclude this one? KnightLago (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • nice talk "KnightLago"

• Keep else u'll leave the dog list unfilled and this dog is also notable like any other . Pearll's sun (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability appears to have been established since the original nomination. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely a unique breed, with notability now established, plus "Dog Breed" = "Notable" (not sure if the same is true for cats, but definitely for dogs :-) ) ~ priyanath talk 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'd agree that this article is worth keeping, I wouldn't necessarily argue that "dog breed = notable". The definition of a breed is unclear, and we've deleted a number of articles on dog (cross-)breeds which were judged non-notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs expansion but no reason to delete. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability established.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sources that KnightLago found assert that this article does in fact pass notability guidelines.--Mifter (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why should rare breeds be excluded from WP? ArcAngel (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just by being a unique dog breed in itself is "explaining" why its notable. The Hindu source confirms high notability. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.