Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)

The following is a draft working towards a proposal for adoption as a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.
The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal.

Shortcut

WP:NBREED

This page provides [draft] guidelines for editors in applying the Wikipedia concept of notability to articles about domesticated organisms, including animal breeds, plant cultivars, and related categorizations.^[a] Non-notable topics should not have stand-alone articles on Wikipedia, though they may be mentioned in others (e.g., have an entry in a list article) if they are of encyclopedic interest, not indiscriminate trivia.

Scope

These guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), but are intended to provide editors with more specific criteria to help determine the notability of breeds and other named groups of domestic animals. Meeting one or more of these criteria is an indicator of likely notability but it does not automatically confer notability. Some breeds or types (particularly extinct populations) may not meet any of these criteria, yet may be notable under the GNG due to possessing reliable-source coverage that resulted from uniqueness, newsworthiness, or historic, cultural, or other value.

This guideline does not address wild organisms (although it does encompass feral ones), nor scientific taxonomic ranks of domesticates at the subspecies level or higher (species, genus, etc.); topics like chicken and tangerine are presumptively notable (but this does not apply to hybrids, even inter-generic ones).
This guideline does cover topics such as the Dong Tao chicken and the Fairchild tangerine. By extension, an article on a group of breeds or cultivars (such as warmblood and cabbage, respectively) is in-scope.
In many cases, an article on a cultivar will exist simultaneously alongside an article on the subspecies it belongs to, with the former focusing on human usage and the latter on the plant's natural history. If the entire species has been domesticated (or arose under domestication), there will usually be a single article; this is true of most domesticated animal articles (Dog, etc.) and many plant ones. Numerous breed or cultivar articles may exist along with the species or subspecies one, however. There can also sometimes be separate articles on an organism from a broad taxonomic perspective and from a narrow human-use perspective (e.g. Brassica oleracea is about a species with many cultivars, while we have several separate articles on the latter, including cabbage, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi, and gai lan).

The notability of breeds and other groups of domesticates can be troublesome to determine, as new breeds, strains, and varietals are often created and promoted, while others may go extinct. Due to the inherent lack of mainstream media coverage of less-popular breeds, cultivars, and other classifications – especially of species that are not frequently domesticated, and even more so of breeds uncommon in the English-speaking world – there is a likelihood that some breed articles will be long-term stubs. Such under-developed articles are not ideal, but not inherently unencyclopedic, and will tend to attain more material with time, provided that their subjects are actually verifiable and notable in the first place.

Terminology

A breed, in general terms, is a form of homogeneous domesticated animal or domesticated plant. It is not an exact scientific or biological term, but is a term of art in various contexts, with differing definitions. It is not the same as a species, though every breed is a subset of a species (or a hybrid between them). A cultivar is essentially a plant breed which has been formally named and classified under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). No comparable classification system exists for animal breeds.

For purposes of this guideline, breed is interpreted broadly and encompasses everything from loosely-defined landraces, through formally standardized animal breeds and plant cultivars, to patented genetically modified organisms and laboratory strains. Thus, the advice here covers horse types, dog breed groups, plant cultivar groups and trade designations, certain yeast strains, laboratory mice, and any other such grouping of domesticates.

When discussing plants versus animals, this page may also separately use cultivar and breed, respectively, as a shorthand for all the applicable classifications.

Notability criteria

To qualify as notable and thus able to have a stand-alone article, a population must meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG), specifically: significant (non-trivial) coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A population will most likely need to fulfill at least one of the following criteria to meet that standard:

Recognized by a notable and reputable,^[b] international or national organization that publishes a breed standard or cultivar standard. These are usually species- or genus-specific.
- Examples include the American Kennel Club, Fédération Cynologique Internationale and the American Cat Fanciers Association; a plant example is the World Federation of Rose Societies and its national affiliates.
- Some countries do not have a national organization but they do have an agreed-upon standard, e.g. the Australian Poultry Standard.
- Many laboratory animal strains and GMO plants are defined and maintained by a conceptually equivalent scientific laboratory protocol for breeding (often patented).
Recognized by an international or national government body.
- Sometimes, national breeding organizations do not currently exist, but agencies such as a department/ministry of agriculture or commerce will have recognized a breed or landrace. This is particularly common in less-developed countries. (However, recognition or protection of a population often does not equate to establishment of a breed or cultivar; do not mix-and-match terminology.)
- A sub-national government body (state, county, canton, province, departement, etc.) might also be sufficient, in jurisdictions where decisions such as protection of a population of animals is decided at that level of government, since such action is likely to generate secondary-source coverage.
Recognized by a notable and reputable,^[b] international or national organization of some other form, such as a rare breeds society. Such organizations may cover multiple species.
- An animal example is The Livestock Conservancy; a plant example is the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) system.
Recognized by a notable and reputable,^[b] international or national organization that sanctions and promulgates rules for showing and competition.
- In equestrianism, organizations such as the United States Equestrian Federation have rules for competition by many breeds. For dogs, the Fédération Cynologique Internationale plays a similar role.
- These are usually species-specific for domestic animals, but may be broader for cultivated plants. In many cases such organizations address "types" or "classes" of a domesticate, rather than particular breeds or cultivars.
Treated as a breed or cultivar by substantial, neutral coverage in multiple independent, reliable, specialist publications. These are usually species- or genus-specific.
Listed in breed encyclopedias, or other general-interest works, that are broadly recognized as reliable. These are often species-specific for animals, but broader for plants.
Such works are often tertiary sources , so some actual secondary sources will still be required to demonstrate notability.
Described as a breed, cultivar, landrace, or other genetically distinct population in multiple, and reliable scholarly publications.^[c]
Pedigreed in a notable and reputable,^[b] international or national breed registry (including a herdbook or studbook that meets that qualification).

Recognition by such sources need not be continual or current, as notability is not temporary. However, it should not be just provisional (experimental, probationary, developmental, etc.); most attempts to establish new breeds fail. And if multiple organizations have merged one breed into another, it is likely that Wikipedia would also merge the articles on them unless article length made that impractical.

Any population can meet the general notability guideline for unusual reasons that result in non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; this been the case with various crossbreeds that have become popular despite no recognition as breeds in their own right. Even so, it is sometimes better to merge into broader articles, especially if a stand-alone article would indefinitely remain in stub state. Various sub-populations (e.g. size or coat-color variations; cultivars that do not receive significant coverage on their own) should almost always be merged into their main articles. The same goes for essentially the same population when it is simply given different names by different organizations.

Reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability

Wikipedia's policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is important in multiple ways. Only secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, providing in-depth coverage of the topic, can contribute to its potential notability, or be used to make assertions on Wikipedia that require any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (AEIS). A particular organization recognizing a breed or cultivar isn't what makes it likely to be notable; it's that good secondary sources probably exist for it by now because of that recognition. Breed standards, regulatory/legal definitions, breed registries, and scholarly works of a population-defining nature are primary sources. Many other specialist, academic, and general-interest publications constitute secondary sources. Some may still be primary if they consist mostly of opinion or new research, or they may be low-reliability tertiary sources if they simply repeat what has been published elsewhere without any new analysis or any indication what their own sources were. Tertiary sources more broadly include general encyclopedias, dictionaries, breed and cultivar lists, and online databases of organisms; these do not contribute to notability, either.

Breed registries (including kennel clubs and studbook organizations) in particular:

Kennel clubs are generally only considered reliable sources for non-controversial claims about themselves and their own publications, such as the physical traits specified by their breed standards, year of acceptance of a breed, and the number of animals registered by them.
Other information sourced from breed registries should only be used to supplement information from independent, reliable, secondary sources and not be cited independently. They generally disclaim their own reliability as sources, anyway.^[1]^[2]
Not all organizations with a national-sounding name represent well-established, reputable entities. Some may be questionably reliable, because they were are a very small group, were established only recently, and/or are overly promotional of a particular developing breed or of all breeds developed in the group's region. Many obscure breed registries have also been created as fly-by-night puppy mills and the like, and are not reliable for anything encyclopedic.^[d]
Existence of a one-topic breeder and fancier organization or publication is insufficient on its own to establish that a breed or cultivar is notable, since it is not independent of the subject.

Other primary sources:

Primary- or original-research papers are also primary sources (even if published after extensive peer review in the most prestigious academic journals). They do not prove notability and cannot be used to make any AEIS assertion on Wikipedia (despite their purpose in academia being to advance just such a claim for other researchers to test).
Outright promotional material by breeder groups and commercial nurseries and seed/bulb suppliers is common – and thoroughly primary and unreliable. The fact that a breeders' club exists for a variety of rabbit, or that a new trade designation has been asserted for a kind of vegetable, does not mean Wikipedia has another domesticated animal or plant topic that it needs to create a page for, or cover at all. Such sources generally cannot be used, and aggrandizing claims they make are not encyclopedia material. This goes especially for dubious claims about ancient history, health as a human food or medication source, or a breed's intelligence or other mental traits. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing.

Dubious secondary sources:

Topical magazines are not always high-quality sources, and some of their output is really tertiary or even primary. Not all fancier and breeder publications necessarily are entirely independent of their subjects, either, due to factors such as fiduciary ties to the industry, amateurish vested-interest writing (such as an exaggeratedly positive breed profile written by a breeder of that variety), or a desire to be the first to break the story of a developing breed (which may not yet or ever be notable under Wikipedia's general notability guideline).
News media can sometimes confuse one variety with another, or uncritically repeat outlandish historical, health, or behavioral claims; if there is evidence this has happened in a particular case, it is not a useful source (for notability purposes or otherwise). This is directly comparable to a news publisher regurgitating from a press release; it is primary material in an otherwise secondary source.

Tertiary sources:

An entry in a catalogue of varieties in not a notability indicator. Such a source may be of some limited value for verifiability of non-controversial basic facts, but cannot be used for AEIS claims.
Not all works about breeds and cultivars that may sound reliable (e.g., have Encyclopedia in their titles) actually are. Many breed-related works are unreliable coffee table books or children's literature, and many cultivar-listing works are non-authoritative starter books for gardeners, with authorship of dubious expertise, and often outdated. Similar concerns adhere to mass-market books that make iffy health claims about particular cultivars of plant, and "clickbait" websites of unclear authorship making questionable claims about pet breed origins, behavior, intelligence, safety around children, etc.
Various breed "encyclopedias" aim to be as inclusive as possible (to seem more comprehensive than competing works), and may claim "breed" status for color or size variants, uncommon crossbreeds and hybrids, experimental attempts at breed establishment, or extinct historical populations about which little real information has survived.
Some (especially in the livestock sector) have been known to accept paid, promotional entries.
The DAD-IS database uncritically accepts whatever is provided to it by national bodies. E.g., one country may claim that a particular population is a national and distinct cultivar or breed, when it is simply their name for something that has a different name in two bordering countries; these are not separate cultivars or breeds for Wikipedia purposes unless independent, reliable, secondary sources confirm that they are encyclopedically distinct.

Species-specific additional concerns and guidance:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breed RS guide – evaluating the reliability of sources on horse populations

Species-specific considerations

Dogs

A dog breed, dog type, dog crossbreed, or canid hybrid is (aside from when it obviously meets the requirements of the general notability guidelines), presumptively notable if it is recognised by one or more of:

Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI)
- Any national kennel club that is an affiliate of FCI
American Kennel Club
Canadian Kennel Club
The Kennel Club (UK)
United Kennel Club (US)

Dog crossbreeds and hybrids are usually not notable, unless subject to extensive independent coverage (e.g. Labradoodle). Non-notable crossbreeds that are verifiable and worth at least mentioning in the encyclopedia are best covered at the articles on the breeds they are derived from (or at wolf-dog or coydog in the case of hybrids).

Redundant articles get deleted or merged

A common cause of page mergers is when an article is created about a non-notable but verifiable variety that might be notable if it had more coverage in independent, reliable sources. Rather than lose the all information about the variety from the encyclopedia, basic information about it is likely to be merged into a list article (example: List of experimental cat breeds), or into a specific parent article (e.g., double-nosed Andean tiger hound was merged to pachón Navarro, and Iron Age pig to boar–pig hybrid).

Cultivars may also have trade designations and selling names; these are not independently notable and should redirect to the cultivar article and be mentioned there (each alternative name should be boldfaced at its first occurrence, and there is a specific template, {{Trade designation}}, for their markup). Similarly, the same animal breed should not have multiple articles written about it just because different registries call it something different; cover in the article text any organizational differences in nomenclature and breed-standard details. In cases where some groups treat two varieties as a single breed and some treat them as a separate breeds, two articles may be viable (e.g. Estonian Native horse and Estonian Draft horse) or may not be (e.g. Tasman Manx cat redirects to a section at Manx cat). Apply the criteria above to each alleged breed.

However, if a page is created about a variety and the variety is already sufficiently covered at another article, deletion of the new page is the likely outcome if there's nothing important to merge from the one into the other.

For this reason, avoid splitting breed articles into new pages about sub-breeds, color or size varieties, and other trivial criteria that would result, if the separate articles were fully developed, into pages with substantially similar content. These will be re-merged. Splits are generally only justified when the focus of the new page will be on a topically distinct subject, the inclusion of which in the main article would give that subject undue weight compared to the rest of the main article's content and/or result in an overly long main article. Some examples include any notable individual animal of that breed (e.g. famous rescue dog or racehorse), a derived crossbreed or new breed with substantial mainstream coverage (e.g. Cymric cat from Manx cat), a feral population that is clearly stand-alone notable (e.g. Kiger mustang),

Notes

^ Although primarily written with plant cultivars, farm animals, pet breeds, and laboratory test animals in mind, this guideline also encompasses, as applicable, domesticated microrganisms such as laboratory and industrial strains.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d A notable and reputable publisher might not yet have an actual Wikipedia article but will necessarily be covered in multiple, independent reliable sources, even if industry-specific ones, or their reputability would not be assessable in the first place. Sources do need to be from reputable publishers; e.g., it is possible for a notorious "puppy mill" to become notable, due to media coverage of unethical activities, but that would not make it a good source.
^ "Predatory" journals and conferences, and self-published work, such as pre-print papers on arXiv, do not qualify, though the latter may be useful for a convenience URL after publication in a proper journal or conference proceedings volume, in absence of another full-text link.
^ For crowdsourced and incomplete lists of non- or questionably-reputable dog and cat registries in particular, see the documentation of {{Infobox dog breed}} and {{Infobox cat breed}}, respectively.

References

^ "Terms and Conditions". TheKennelClub.org.uk. The Kennel Club. 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. The Kennel Club makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the completeness and accuracy of the information contained on the Website.
^ "Terms of Use". AKC.org. American Kennel Club. 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2020. AKC does not warrant that ... the site or the service will be ... error-free, or that defects in the site or the service will be corrected. AKC does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the content, or that any errors in the content will be corrected.