Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 May 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Sandstein 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shinese[edit]

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

Split on request of author, since it is certainly more well-sourced than the others in the list it was previously in. The references used in this article are:

only passing mentions, no detail (e.g. news articles that mention name)
unreliable sites (e.g. Dog Breed Info Center)
about the parent breeds, not the mix itself
designer breed registries, which are quite lax generally and provide long lists of many possible combos (without further elaboration in this case)

Dog breed/mix articles are somewhat unique because there's very little actual substantive fact out there re: breeds. Just a couple of paragraphs in a reliable source would make it okay for inclusion, in my view, but I can't seem to find that. — anndelion ※ 19:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ※ 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all information is sourced; although there are passing mentions for the name "Shinese," there is substantial information regarding modern day crossbreeding of the two - Shihtzu and Pekingese. See a Gbooks search. This also pertains to early (comparably ancient) crossbreeding of the two. I suppose all of this could be merged, but I felt that the sum of all this information on this crossbreed warranted its own article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, some of that could be merged, if it's not already in the Shih Tzu article. I personally doubt that those original outcrossings had much bearing on the current "cross any two breeds" environment -- though I could be wrong on that note. — anndelion ※ 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the history further, I can't find any evidence that previous outcrosses to Pekingese within the Shih Tzu breed are at all relevant to the current Shinese/Peke-a-Tzu. It does seem like it was somewhat significant to the Shih Tzu breed, certainly. — anndelion ※ 23:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is well-written, and is sourced and fully-citated. Deletion seems extreme. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's extensively-sourced but take a look at the sources themselves and their relevance to the topic. I've listed above why none of them seem appropriate to establish notability. — anndelion ※ 23:43, 14 April 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that? Keep. – George Serdechny 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it meets the general notability guideline -- this mix has barely any coverage, let alone significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (or even one). If I cut the article down to referenced material, there will be nothing to it. It's not hard to find references to notable designer dogs or breeds, and I feel the onus should be on those wanting to keep it at this point; I've given my piece. Where are the sources? – anna 18:37, 22 April 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.