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 delete. Secret ^account 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Indian Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article has been deleted in the past by Proposed Deletion. Article subject is a new proprietary dog breed; there are no third party references listed, and after an internet search no reputable sources of information were found. Article contains a number of commercial external links Pesco (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) To clarify, I think the real issues are that it's hard to find reliable sources on the article subject and, since there doesn't seem to be any independant commentary on the breed, it hasn't demonstrated its notability. --Pesco (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I agree article is pretty spammy at present. If this is a legitimate breed then an article on it is warranted (same as any legitimate breed of livestock maintained by a breed society). The spam links would need to go though. I sent a message to one of the dog breeder editors to see what they have to offer on this? Sting au Buzz Me... 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not AKC or UKC recognized. See WP:Articles for deletion/British Bulldogge for a very similar case from this time last year. Tevildo (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm starting to agree with you. I still haven't heard back from the dog breeder? It also states on the article that they were going to continue working on it but nothings been done and that tells me they are just using it as an advertisement. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Can't see it staying as is. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• EDIT 2: All right, I've done some heavy updating on the page, adding information, references, and trying to cut down on non-objective language. I hope these edits are sufficient. If not, let me know what I need to do, and I'll do it.

EDIT 3: I was unaware that there were any puppy-mill associations with NKC. Is there some more authoritative (no offense meant) source available on exactly what's wrong with them? I'll do some Googling, but, honestly, that post didn't contain enough information for me to determine if it was a good warning or just sour grapes from an AKC supporter. Incidentally, the charges about them being bred for appearance alone are untrue -- Night Eyes, at least, is very insistent upon breeding for temperament. My experience with this breed and its breeders is the diametric opposite of what the hoax pages would lead you to expect, which is precisely why I wanted to make a relatively neutral page for the breed. They do exist, they will continue to exist, and while I can't speak for Majestic View, Night Eyes is an ethical kennel which takes extremely good care of its dogs and is very choosy about who is allowed to buy one. She's about as far from a puppy mill as it's possible to get. So I'm a bit skeptical about this NKC = Puppy Mill business, no offense meant. Nanimwe (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Dogbreedinfo.com was an interesting site actually.[1] Add any reference sources you can fine. Any articles about them been published in papers. I'll say more on your talk page. Don't reply here please. Keep comments on AfD page short. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but make sure it's really neutral. In my vast (really) experience with wikipedia dog-breed articles is that, if there are people selling them by that name, the article will be recreated over and over. It's better to have the article and try to make sure that it clarifies as neutrally as possible that this is a developing breed, there might be only a couple of breeders doing it, that its legitimacy is still debatable, and cite ANY kinds of references that one can find. I do think that it's very hard to put info on the breed about its temperament, size, etc. when it's not even close to being a fully developed breed yet. As for the NKC giving it an air of authenticity--bah humbug. (However, we also don't need to require that a dog be recognized by the AKC to be legit--they've got their own issues.) Elf | Talk 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if allowing an article topic that only has unverifiable and possibly biased sources to exist merely because it might be created again based on the same sources is the best reason to keep an article, but I do understand the thought. In your opinion, is there a dog breed article that would serve as a good model for this case? --Pesco (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per what seems to be a persistent lack of reliable sources. The possibility of recreation is not unique to dog-breed articles, but not a good reason to keep it. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 25 January 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.