Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithuanian Black-Headed sheep
- 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. some refs added & nom withdrawn.--PeaceNT (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuanian Black-Headed sheep[edit]
- Lithuanian Black-Headed sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article is currently unreferenced, and the breed does not appear to be even of note in its country of origin (with less than 300 individuals, according to the current article). The most comprehensive list of sheep breeds available at this time, compiled by the Oklahoma State University Dept. of Animal Science, does not list the breed. As this article cannot reasonably be expected to ever be sourced by reliable, published sources, it is inappropriate to have an article, as outlined in WP:V VanTucky 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination Now that the article has a couple reliable sources, I don't deletion is in order. VanTucky 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is a worthless post.Tomic (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I agree, it's hard to find information, but I did find a little. According to the Google cache of this the breed may represent over 50% of the breeding stock nationally. The 300 number just refers to this scientific purebred flock. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that first source qualifies per WP:RS. For the other one, it gives an error. I can't exactly use a Google cache as a verification tool now can I? I tried to improve this article before I initially prodded it, as you can see I've created quite a few sheep stubs myself. But I honestly don't think there's enough out there to genuinely verify this one. VanTucky 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The article is unencylopedic. No source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Actually that first source at www.zum.lt is part of an FAO project. Look at the attributions at the bottom of the page. Even if it weren't I don't know why it wouldn't meet WP:RS. And any distinct breed with a national herd book is notable, particularly if recognized as distinct by the FAO.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article lacks sources, and the notability of the subject is highly questionable. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The FAO is pretty much as reliable a source you could get for a breed of sheep. It seems that the name is more often spelt without the hyphen as in these sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Added two UN references; one is the breed description from FAO and the other a development programme initiative supporting the breed. If there is a WP page discussing domestic animal breed notability criteria, pls let me know. Novickas (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. also seems to be known as Lithuanian Blackface. This paper seems to use the names interchangeably. Here are some more sources which use that name. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if the article is about obscure subject where sources are hard to find online, it does not mean they don't exist. Renata (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Novickas addition of UN sources. Article is decent as a stub, and I see no reason to delete. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:50, 22 February 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.