Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Citations are all primary, self-published, or unreliable. Basic origin is crossing of two separate breeds by two separate breeders. That is all. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. New page with some useful prose and a quick before yields some possibly independent sources. —siro χ o 04:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some examples, then, because my BEFORE search turns up nothing but vanity horse websites copying breed information for content, but no actual independent or comprehensive coverage of this as a breed. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief description here [1] but that's it. It only gets less than a dozen hits in Gnews, zero in Gscholar, Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"Not notable. Citations are all primary, self-published, or unreliable. Basic origin is crossing of two separate breeds by two separate breeders. That is all."

Page writer here: Please read all of the sources and citations on the page in full before marking a page for deletion. The breed association and other breeders clearly state that the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft is not just "the crossing of two separate breeds by two separate breeders (i.e. Percheron and Appaloosa". In breeding, crossing one breed to another is considered an F1 cross, but this breed is several generations beyond F1 crosses. Also, the Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Association is not a "self-published or unreliable source". I am not affiliated with this organization in any way, and contributed the article based on its notability in reference to other horse breeds. Obversa (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently sourced to the breeder's association, so a primary source and a weblog. Neither of which is RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this: It looks like the page was vandalized by another user after I initially wrote the page. In the original page, I included this line: "Some consider it to be a type of draft cross, or a subtype of the Percheron breed, while others consider it to be its own breed." I also included this as a source: [2]https://boisvertfarms.com/americn-sugarbush-harlequin-drafts.html

However, another user came in after I made that edit and removed that line, as well as the citation. Obversa (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source that is not a breeder of this new breed or association connected to this new breed is the Horse Canada source, which is not enough to satisfy GNG. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 hits on Proquest [3] but they don't help much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources does not turn up much, mostly self published citations and fails WP:GNG. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It looks like the original page was mostly copied from the official breed registry page and they are really mad about. The best course of action is to delete this page, because there was so much misinformation added, and let the registry decide if they want a page here. The ASHDA members were sent a notice about the page and most were outraged how terribly written the article was. According to the ASHDA facebook page and their website most of their stuff, including the breed name, is copyrighted, so using it here without their permission would violate wikipedia's rules regarding copyrighted material. HistoricHoofbeats (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— HistoricHoofbeats (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you please advise how you came to create an account solely to participate in this discussion? Star Mississippi 15:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because several hundred ASHDA members were notified that someone had posted false info about our breed that can hurt our businesses. This is what happens when someone makes a page and doesn't do actual research. Aligning ASHDA with Sendera was completely wrong. The owners of Sendera had horses removed from their possession for starving the animals and were never members of ASHDA nor did they own any Sugarbush Harlequin Drafts. I'm not going to be the only one who arrives at the page because of this irresponsible creation. I'm sure if the page remains up it will be constantly edited to keep the facts straight, because the self editors that traipse through the Appaloosa, Cream Draft, Vanner and other horse breed pages all add fake information. If any of the official ASHDA logos or photos are used it will probably trigger copyright violations being reported to wikipedia, which means most of the visuals and information will be limited. I looked at the profile that created the page and they have multiple Wikipedia copyright violations for using stuff they weren't supposed to. Why was this person still allowed to create articles if all they do is steal other people's work? At some point journalistic integrity should be upheld. HistoricHoofbeats (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The registry will not be allowed to decide if they want a page here, see WP:OWN and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing (not an exact match, but much of it applies). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note HistoricHoofbeats is a confirmed sock of Apphistorian, who was blocked for making legal threats to sue people over the existence of this article - they have no business contributing to this discussion, and their arguments should be given zero weight. That said, it looks like some editors in good standing consider that there are valid reasons why the article should be deleted; their arguments should be given no less weight than they otherwise would be, merely because they are in favour of the same outcome as the block-evading sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:06, 9 October 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.