Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain View Cur

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The result was no consensus or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Cur[edit]

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

Not a notable cur: no reliable, secondary sources were found. Sites such as Dog Breed Info, Dog Breeds A-Z, and Sarah's Dogs are not suitable since they fail to meet the criteria for self-published sources; nothing whatsoever is stated about the authors of the pages -- not even their names -- or why, implicitly or explicitly, their information is valid and worth referencing in an encyclopedia article. This cur is also listed in a couple of books that provide no information about it. Anna ^talk 14:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now found several paragraphs coverage in a fairly obscure reliable source, Desmond Morris's Dogs: A Dictionary of Dog Breeds (covers more than 1,000 -- worth checking for notability!) The author lists a publication by David Osborn about squirrel hunting as his source, and although the book seems to be self-published, the author does qualify as a reliable source himself as a Wildlife Research Coordinator at the University of Georgia. As a result, the breed is probably notable, though marginally. If no one else comments on this please close it as defaulting to keep, as I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks, Anna ^talk 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 25 July 2011 (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.