Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator. BD2412 T 02:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratonero Murciano de Huerta

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ratonero Murciano de Huerta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails GNG. Article has a single source of indeterminate reliability, but I can find no attributable mention of these dogs anywhere else. Cavalryman (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – notability established by Neodop. Cavalryman (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources?
And do you have any particular reason to conduct a merger with with Feist or Rat terrier? It seems wholly inappropriate to me, according to the article these dogs are Spanish with some British infusions, whilst according to the Feist article (admittedly in dire need of a rewrite) Feists descend from British terriers. Cavalryman (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. They are vermine (rat) killers. Lineage and countries of origins are but one factor. I've already added source. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort. See the links I listed above. WP:Before; WP:Preserve; WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission? Cavalryman (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Do you have anything that says they aren't? And disregarding, of course, the Terrier navbox and all those articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you review some of the project's policies on sourcing, we don't include unsourced claims on Wikipedia because no sources specifically state that claim to be false. Further, Wikipedia articles and navboxes are not valid sources for other Wikipedia articles. Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I note you have added another source, dogzone.com, I assess it to be short of WP:RS:
  • the webpage appears to be self published with a number of contributors, the editor of the site's only qualification is she attended university, and the other listed staff member of the site is her pet beagle, there does not appear to be any other editorial oversight
  • whilst the articles appear to be written by vets, a degree in veterinary medicine may make you an expert in veterinary care, it in no way makes you an authority on domestic animal breeds or types, further WP:RSSELF states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, I cannot find anything published by any of these authors beyond social media accounts
  • further to the last, the articles on veterinary care on the site would not meet WP:MEDRS and so should not be used as a source for any of our articles on veterinary care
  • Wikipedia appears to have been one of the major sources used in many of the articles, a clear example is their List of extinct dog breeds is almost identical to our List of dog breeds#Extinct breeds and varieties (even using our disambiguation) and most of photographs on the site are attributed to Wikipedia or Commons NB I have not taken the time to compare every dog breed on the site with our extant list
Therefore I do not assess it establishes notability for these dogs and I believe it should be removed from the page. If you can produce something reliable I would be more than happy to withdraw this request. Cavalryman (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thirteen, I have removed all of the clearly self-published, click-bait, non-RS from the article, giving rationale for each in the edit summaries, per WP:BRD if you wish to reintroduce any of them we should discuss first. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of WP:RELIABLE sources, therefore lack of WP:NOTABILITY. "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources" I do not regard dogzone.com and dogrell.com etc to meet these criteria. William Harristalk 10:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has multiple sources plus two books. The article also has a see also with 4 other notable Spanish ratters. The article may not have as many references as more popular mixed breed dogs like the very popular Labradoodle but it has enough to show WP:N. It serves our readers to include this dog breed in our encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting ARS to start popping up. See also sections do not impart notability, neither do further reading lists that contain self-published printed to order pamphlets, and most of the sources are clearly short of RS, can you indicate any RS? Not just self-published webpages etc. Further there is no need to have a see also section that includes breeds covered in both navboxes on the page, further still to claim there are five ratoneros breeds is OR without a WP:Verifiable source stating such, you have presented no such source. Cavalryman (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources that I can find for verifiability, and I question if such a breed even exists. Most of the content in the article is dependent on this one PDF file which is titled (translated) Canine Association of the Autonomous Community of Murcia. It appears to me that it's one of those questionable rare breeds that is so rare it was never a true blood to begin with, and that it was probably a breed in the making that never developed. There are untold numbers of similar unestablished breeds. Atsme Talk 📧 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Breed and its forebears existed sine the 16th and 17th century. Not "a breed in the making." If anything, it is a breed that barely escaped extinction, and may be seeing some resurgence. I assume you read the article, but maybe not. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show a single reliable source that states that? Cavalryman (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment every once in a while I came to an AfD. I improve the article, and then the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion. I did quite a bit of work to the article, and the work of editors should stand until this AfD completes. If anyone disagrees lets discuss on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not if that work is truely sloppy editing attempting to fool the casual observer, your work was a combination of WP:Original research and additions of clearly unWP:Reliable sources, every source removed was addressed in the edit summaries and a TP discussion was commenced. Every once in a while I observe the ARS at work and am truely underwhelmed. Address the issues already raised or you will be reverted. Note I have included a link to WP:OR in this response to you (now twice) as it appears you are unfamiliar with that policy, can I suggest you take the time to correct that? Cavalryman (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I know what original research is. Your WP:PAs are noted, Every once in a while I observe the ARS at work and am truely underwhelmed., and I was expecting ARS to start popping up. and your WP:FOLLOWING is also noted. My comment was that it is not good form to diminish the article while at AfD. you are putting up walls of text. Perhaps both of us can allow the AfD to proceed organically. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed this and I categorically deny following you anywhere, if you want to !vote in an AfD in my area of interest that was listed on one of the deletion lists I watch, there is a good chance I too will cast a !vote. I ask that you withdraw this PA. Cavalryman (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Cavalryman Your analysis and contention is wrong. We will have to agree to disagree. You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis.
Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen, stating the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion is a PA and I expect you will similarly counsel your comrade. Unfortunately the policy is quite clear, I have given detailed accounts of why each source fails as RS and you both have so far refused to discuss, I ask you do so. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Further, as already stated if RS can be presented I would be more than happy to withdraw this proposal in a heartbeat, I have withdrawn AfDs before and have recreated articles I presented at AfD when sources become available, unfortunately but none have been presented here. Cavalryman (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice.
If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing non-RS & OR is what diligent editors do, I will leave it to you determine my opinion of editors who add such material. Cavalryman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You want reliable sources that substantiate the breed history:

  1. "Historia de la Raza Rataenero Murciano" (in Spanish). Retrieved July 15, 2020.
  2. Elliott, Pippa. "Ratonero Murciano de Huerta" (in Spanish). Retrieved July 14, 2020. However with changing farming practices the niche filled by the Murcian Ratter niche became redundant. The result being that this once popular dog is now considered a rare breed.
  3. "Estudio sobre el ratonero murciano: Asociación canina de la comunidad autónoma de Murcia" (PDF) (in Spanish). Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano. Retrieved July 15, 2015.
  4. Vandersteen, Francis. "Ratonero Murciano de Huerta" (in French). Retrieved July 15, 2020.</ref>

As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Wikipedia systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen, I agree kennel club recognition is not the only way a dog breed is deemed to be notable, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is. And I refute you aspersions that I do not like Spanish sources, yesterday I cited this, this and this, all of them are reliable, all of them discuss a range of Spanish dog breeds that have no KC recognition and none of them mention these dogs.
To address the webpages you have cited: (I hope you do not object to me separating your last two webpages)
  1. Not RS, non-notable “kennel club” with no official standing and not independent of the topic that strangely elsewhere does not include these dogs among their list of Spanish breeds, further it claims up front some form of legitimacy from Royal Decree 558/2001, neither the club nor these dogs are mentioned in that document
  2. Not RS, as described above a self published webpage with several contributors who appear to use Wikipedia as their primary source
  3. Is the one source already in the article and so not introduced by you, just the same like the first it is from a non-notable “kennel club” and probably not RS
  4. Not RS - completely WP:RSSELF published website from an author with no established expertise on the subject matter
You are incorrect stating I will never withdraw this nomination, I have said numerous times that I would be happy to upon presentation of multiple RS, that has not yet occurred. Cavalryman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ok, we're all here for the same reason - to determine if this article warrants being a standalone. I've had happy collaborations with all of you, so let's take a closer look at the sources, and try to determine if it passes WP:GNG which clearly states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. ACCAM is a member of Real Sociedad Canina de España which is a member of FCI, the latter of which we recognize as a RS. We first have to establish notability of the breed, if indeed it is a purebred dog. From what I've read in the sources, the breed was being developed by ACCAM but was not officially recognized beyond the original breeders - first red flag. What I've read online that was published by ACCAM (which is not an independent source) it states the following (my bold underline): We will continue working for this native breed, for its improvement and selection, but we are pleased that this first and important step towards its official recognition as a pure breed has ended with the satisfaction of the work done with enthusiasm, enthusiasm and well done. They have not yet received official recognition as a purebred. They seem to think it's a purebred but we cannot use that as a source for establishing notability; therefore, the "breed" does not pass WP:GNG. A few other sources refer to it as a "rare breed" which indicates to me there's a reason for it being rare, most likely due to the fact that it was never officially established as a purebred - in all likelihood, it's because the dogs do not breed true. My concern is the online runaway train we know as the rare breed scam that organizations like the Humane Society, and even insurance companies warn consumers about. We need to be careful that we are not providing a platform to legitimize some of these outfits. I'm also wondering if it would qualify as a landrace breed of sorts since it was around prior to purpose breeding? Atsme Talk 📧 20:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Atsme:. I was involved breeding cats for many years. The Lykoi was a cat I encountered about 9 years ago. To me...it looked like a cat with mange and they called it the Werewolf cat. I thought there was no way this breed should ever be accepted into a registry, but to my dismay it was accepted into TICA. Next someone found a long hair recessive gene in Bengal cats and then bred and sold Cashmere Bengals. again I thought there was no way it would ever be accepted - however now steps are underway to accept this cat. I have several friends now breeding unrecognized dog breeds. Labradoodle's Aussiedoodles (which does not have an article yet), Goldendoodles... In any event there are several Spanish Ratters, and as you know I believe it serves our readers to have an article. I will continue to research the breed as the AfD deadline permits. Thanks for your careful consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, please forgive me for responding above your most welcome thoughts, I wanted to address those websites directly.
Lightburst, it may well be that these dogs will become notable in time, but until sufficient sources are presented that time is not now. Cavalryman (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
FWIW I have a multivolume Encyclopedia of Dogs which has a large entry on the American Rat Terrier, which also mentions a couple of the English breeds. (I don't have it at this location, so I can't give you a better citation. It doesn't mention any of the Spanish breeds. It also mentions as part of the article on the American Rat Terrier Teddy Roosevelt Terrier, which here has its own separate article.
And there are so-called 'hybrid dogs' appearing every minute. Indeed, the Leonberger was derided as a bad knockoff of a Saint Bernard for many years. (I mean, really, creating a dog to look like the lion in the town crest. Really?) The Europeans had a fascination with creating breeds or rescuing them going back at least to the middle of the 19th Century.
FWIW, breed recognition by the American Kennel Club or the members of the FCI is itself a scam. At least in part is about 'stealing the registry' and generating dog sales and 'pure bred' registration fees. I was involved with the Leonberger Club of America, where many if not most of the members did not want AKC recognition, which happened anyway.
Parenthetically, the article I was referencing about American rat terriers said that one of the sports of owning them was making competitive wagers about whose dog could kill the most mice or rats within a given time. It specifically mentioned that one terrier was released into a barn, and in 7 hours it killed 2501 2105 (it may have said 1205, if I inadvertently transposed the numbers – the hard copy isn't here as I said) of rats in a single barn.2501 kills in 7 hours in one barn. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1993). Rat Terrier. Vol. 2 (4th ed.). Neptune, New Jersey: T.F.H. pp. 714–715. ISBN 0-86622-873-X. ISBN 0-86622-855-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
In any event, recognition by kennel clubs is but one factor that should be considered. It is political and fraught with conflict of interest. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
No kidding!? I'm getting rid of the barn cats and getting a rat terrier. ^_^ My fat cats lay around and sleep most of the day, and occasionally come to the house to run the squirrels out of my front yard. 🐀🐈 As for the breed registries, corruption is darn near everywhere, and that's sad, but as a former breeder (horses, cattle & dogs) I appreciate the long standing breed registries. Sometimes we just have to take the bad with the good. Atsme Talk 📧 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen, I feel your wall of natterings above are the pot calling the kettle black. And I am still mystified how you are confusing American Rat Terriers with these dogs, there are no sources I am aware of connecting them (if there were this AfD would be voided). Are you suggesting that because they have a similar name they are one? If so Wikipedia may as well delete all disambiguation pages. Cavalryman (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
User:Atsme 2501 kills in 7 hours in one barn. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1993). Rat Terrier. Vol. 2 (4th ed.). Neptune, New Jersey: T.F.H. pp. 714–715. ISBN 0-86622-873-X. ISBN 0-86622-855-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to the article on this website, rather than a link to a website. William Harristalk 05:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neodop, thank you for bringing those first two articles to the page, they are the first reliable sources that have been presented here or on the article confirming these dogs exist, and in my opinion they establish notability, the book appears to be self published and so is not usable unless we can establish the credibility of the author as an authority on the subject. I have withdrawn this nomination above. Cavalryman (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
It would be good to add the sources to the article, not just this discussion. Just saying for future reference.
I did that.
  1. Miércoles (September 30, 2009). "La asociación canina pide que el perro ratonero murciano se considere raza autóctona". La Verdad (in Spanish). Retrieved July 23, 2020. The Murcian canine association expects the Ministry of the Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs to approve the official breed standard of the native breed of the Murcian ratter dog, which will give recognition and pedigree to these small dogs that have been common in the Murcian orchard for centuries. The General Directorate of Livestock of the Government of Murcia has already recognized the Murcian [rat] terrier as an indigenous breed.
  2. Gómez, Francisco (March 9, 2009). "Lorca:En busca del pedigrí del perro ratonero murciano La Asociación Canina espera que el Ministerio apruebe el estándar racial oficial de esta raza, habitual de la huerta". La Opinión de Murcia (in Spanish). Retrieved July 23, 2020.
As to the book Manuel, Jose; Veiga, Ferro (January 2020). Maltrato Animal (in Spanish). p. 122. the text can no longer be accessed on line. I added it to further reading.
As I said, this is an old, obscure and local breed.
Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only way that the large number of lesser-known dog articles will improve on Wikipedia is by someone challenging the WP:OR or un-WP:RELIABLE sources that some editors appear to find acceptable. This is what is now happening, as in this case. Be prepared for more, much more. William Harristalk 01:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:William Harris Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself.
You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them.
Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations
This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW.
We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen, it is very good of you to have included those two sources into the article, that is the first positive contributions you or your comrade have made. And your claims of clear notability or snow keep are truely laughable, yes notability has now been established, but not by you or your chum. Cavalryman (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:54, 24 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ratonero_Murciano_de_Huerta&oldid=1216076438"