Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dajal cattle

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dajal cattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Nothing that isn't mentioned in Dajal,_Rajanpur#Daajal_(cattle) and no indication it's a notable breed of cattle. A redirect would be fine. Star Mississippi 20:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 20:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Not enough notable to have a standalone article.NP83 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Does not pass general notability. The article is also in poor condition, but that would be a reason for tagging if it were notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per others. Eagleash (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Added some references there to Dajal,_Rajanpur#Daajal_(cattle) Keep per sources mentioned by Justlettersandnumbers below. Insight 3 (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think. This is surely a notable breed (not that we have any breed notability guidelines). Plenty of hits on Scholar; in-depth coverage in Mason, sixth edition (2016), which says that there were over a million of them in the 1940s; listed in Mason fifth edition (2002) as distinct from the Bhagnari; listed by the FAO in 2007; four mentions (as 'Dajjal') in the bible/torah/quran of cattle breeds, Felius 1995, but Google won't give me even one of the snippets so I can't offer a page number. It's arguable that this could be covered in the Bhagnari page as a breed that derives from it, but I think an independent article is probably preferable; provided there are suitable redirects/hatnotes, there's not that much difference anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the section Dajal,_Rajanpur#Daajal_(cattle) no longer exists, I've removed it because it contained a copy-paste copyvio from here. The three refs added by Insight 3 were:

<ref>{{cite web |title=Dajal |url=http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/cglrc/ilri/beef/Dajal.htm |website=Knowledge Bank |access-date=26 April 2023}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |title=راجن پور پہچان کیا؟؟ |url=https://hamariweb.com/articles/83383 |website=Humari Web |access-date=26 April 2023 |language=ur}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |title=Breeds of Livestock |url=https://breeds.okstate.edu/cattle/dajal-cattle.html?Forwarded=afs.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/dajal |website=breeds.okstate.edu |access-date=26 April 2023}}</ref>

The Dajal, Rajanpur page is once again without a single citation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem @Justlettersandnumbers is that this article has CV issues too. The editor, who was probably the IP you cleaned out, has created lots of messes. You took care of another earlier. They're copying from lots of sources so not clear G12s Star Mississippi 00:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Star Mississippi – I came to this discussion because I was looking at contribs of this user, whose image uploads to Commons are also problematic. I didn't even look at the article last night, but will now clean it – the initial version seems copyvio-free to me, but please let me know if you notice any problem with it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just pblocked them from mainspace after cleaning up another mess at Mirkadim (cattle). Whether or not they're notable (I second your question about breed notability), they need eyes. Any idea on an active project that can help. Star Mississippi 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Agriculture covers domestic livestock breeds, and has a livestock task force. It's about as active as most other projects – barely if at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Source in article do not meet GNG, sources above are entries in lists, if these have SIGCOV tehn every breed of cow is notable and that is clearly not the case.  // Timothy :: talk  10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, have you actually read Mason (2016), page 131? And yes, every recognised domestic animal breed is regarded as notable, I believe – I've created hundreds of such pages. There are only about 14000 listed in DAD-IS, so this is not major burden on the encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment I struck the portion of my nomination which is no longer true thanks to the copyvio editing. Leaving rest as is for discussion to continue with respect to breed notability and also noting User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Cattle,_copyvios for disclosure, although I don't think it's canvassing and happy to have input that might resolve this. Star Mississippi 12:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I've now added a further eight sources – seven as refs and one as further reading – and some content based on them. If anyone's not satisfied that those are sufficient, please ping me and I'll add some more. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of sources provided by Justlettersandnumbers: also, proposed target no longer exists. Noting also one "redirect" !voter is CU blocked, and should be disregarded. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem ok, one is from a University, the rest are acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fourteen sources all covered the subject, and the cited information did match up with those in the wiki article. Not much reason to remove the article at this point. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by Justlettersandnumbers. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn per further discussion. Leaving it open as there are extant redirect votes. Star Mississippi 12:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep with more than a dozen references it’s obvious that this meets general notability. Like species, real breeds are all covered in agricultural science literature and therefore are pretty much notable by default. Only if a breed isn’t officially recognized by breed associations and databases like the UN FAO are there not enough sources. Steven Walling • talk 02:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, due to excellent work by Justlettersandnumbers, et al. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV based on objective information; opinions without valid reasons carry less weight. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - would have closed as keep but possibly considered bad NAC so instead leaving keep submission based on the fact that the latest consensus appears to be for keep, nominator has withdrawn but left open due to redirect comments, and relevant target no longer exists. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2023 (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.