Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic Tree Hound

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The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Tree Hound (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)

Does not seem to be an officially recognized breed. Found a couple tangential mentions such as "Majestic+Tree+Hound"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiyrzy2uzYAhWJ11MKHQokB4AQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Majestic%20Tree%20Hound%22&f=false this, but the breed returns only 136 unique hits on Google and only one-sentence mentions in books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Seems not to be recognized by the American Kennel Club [1], which has previously been used as a criterion for breed notability. Still I couldn't find any spelled-out WP guideline for these... any pointers? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It doesn't seem to be an officially recognised breed (nor are labradoodles or cockerpoos), but it does seem to be an established breed recognised by its own association.

I would have no problem with this being deleted if the WP:DOGS project holds the notability standard to be "recognition by one of a short list of national bodies". But I would see that as a poor standard to use, because of the labradoodle problem. There are crossbreed dogs which are notable by any sensible standard, despite them not being showable and outside the pure breed standards. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Another TPH proposal for deletion which seems to me to meet WP:GNG (unless, that is, every cross breed is explicitly excluded from notability?). How many Google hits does it require for us to conclude that notability criteria are being met? 137+? I have added references to the article, (e.g. this including it being explicitly named by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in a list of types of dog requiring permits for hunting black bear. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Without looking for sources at the moment, can the nominator or the delete !voter explain why, at the very least, a redirect/merge to List of dog breeds is not a possible alternative to deletion? Regards SoWhy 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would we want a non-notable breed in that list? As that list is little more than a table of categories from the main kennel clubs, it would be an empty (and pretty useless) entry for this breed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it was a question, since merging to a list is preferable to complete deletion. The nominator has admitted hat this is a term that is used in books, although I'm unclear how they arrived at 136 "unique hits on Google", when I can find 95,000 hits. including [2] and [3], which claims the breed has been registered in 1980. There seem to be also more GBooks hits which are unfortunately not available though. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this comment made to the nominator's talk page might explain why they see a completely different version of the world via Google than the rest of us mortals. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

I've got a theory. It could be bunnies... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nick Moyes. Yet another overzealous AfD.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per inclusion in theMinutes of the ... Annual Convention of the New York State Conservation Council. (search in the book). Not a ridiculous nomination, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV there is a whole book on the subject of Majestic Tree Hound, which seems enough to make it notable?Marshall, Keith (2016). Majestic Tree Hound Activities Majestic Tree Hound Tricks, Games & Agility Includes: Majestic Tree Hound Beginner to Advanced Tricks, Fun Games, Agility & More. Ocean Blue Publishing. ISBN 9781526921499. DferDaisy (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment again, why does none of this EVER show up when I google? I search page after page after page, go all the way to the back of the queue, but find nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.