Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog

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; fails WP:V rather miserably. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog[edit]

I believe that this cool-sounding breed of dog is in fact an elaborate, well-orchestrated hoax. It is not recognised by any kennel club, and there are no reliable sources for the claims made in the article. The language in which 'Tamaskan' is supposed to mean 'mighty wolf' is unknown; it is not Finnish. The 'Tamaskan Dog Register' and the 'Tamaskan Dog Society of Great Britain', from which much of the content is lifted, are slapdash websites which could have been made by anyone. The creator and principal contributor to this article, Blufawn, is apparently the breeder of these dogs, and their contributions consist of this article, links to this article and pictures of Scottish deerhounds. Blufawn is also the manager of the Tamaskan dog web ring.

A google search turns up nothing conclusive, mainly forums and sites which allow user submitted content. There is a dog owner forum with two threads suggesting that the Tamaskan is just a repackaged Utonagan, a breed with virtually identical characteristics[1] [2]. Nydas 10:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be thinly disguised spam for author User:Blufawn. User:80.223.126.199 tried pulling AfD tag from the page, may be a Blufawn sock. User:80.223.126.199 also put links to Tamaskan on other related breed pages (like Coydog), which were removed by other editors. Tubezone 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the Suomen Kennelliitto there are five native Finnish dog breeds: the Finnish Hound, the Finnish Lapphund, the Karelian Bear Dog, the Finnish Spitz and the Karelo-Finnish Laika. The "Tamaskan Dog" is not mentioned anywhere and also I find it suspicious that the article claims that Tamaskan means "mighty wolf" or "strong wolf" because it means nothing in Finnish. Therefore I think it's a hoax. --さくら木 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First let me say that this breed of dog is not a hoax by any means. Sure it is not recognised by any Kennel Club at the moment but then neither are other breeds such as the Utonagan and Northern Inuit, Labradoogles etc but this does not mean that they are not a breed in themselves. The name was taken from the North American Indian language meaning mighty wolf and no it is not a Finnish word but then neither is the word Utonagan English but taken from a North American Indian saying, yet they are classing themselves as a British breed! Considering the comments about the Tamaskan Dog Register's website being 'slapdash'. I would like to point out here that they are indeed receiving emails almost on a daily basis congratulating them on their professional looking website and beautiful dogs and interest is pouring in from all corners of the globe hence they have this year alone sent Tamaskan out to USA, Holland, Great Britain, Sweden and of course Finland. There have been 3 litters of Tamaskan born this year in Great Britain alone along with others elsewhere. Just because these breeders dont have websites dosnt mean that they dont exist. There are breeders in USA that also dont have websites. You will find that the vast majority of good breeders do not have websites, not everyone even owns a computer! I suggest that people who are not involved with the Tamaskan breed let them carry on with the good work that they are doing and do not make comments about other breeds of which they obviously have no knowledge. I would like to point out here to all the Utonagan people who seem hell bent for some reason or other on trying to interfere with the Tamaskan that the name Utonagan was bought in as a means from escaping the name Northern Inuit!!! so who are they to judge!!! I also have it on good authority that they are using other breeds to widen their gene pool so just what is their problem, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!! As I see it and probably I speak for many others who read these notes that these people are obviously so jealous of others and have nothing better to do with their time than critise and malign anything that is not to their liking and before anyone else jumps to any conclusions I am not from the Tamaskan Register but visiting from UK in order to see these dogs for myself first hand and from what I see I am definately going to book one of these lovely puppies. I have also seen all the awful comments made by the Northern Inuit and Utonagan people in GB on their forums and to be frank I dont now believe a word of them it all shouts very much JEALOUSY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.126.199 (talk • contribs)
Comment - if you're not from the Tamaskan register, how can you know they get emails on a daily basis? And which Native American language is Tamaskan from? Utonagan is apparently from the Chinook language.--Nydas 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The description of Tamaskan in the article: The Tamaskan is a mix of different types of Arctic breeds, including Alaskan Malamute and Siberian Husky, but it also contains a very small amount of German Shepherd. In other words, it's a mutt, right? Isn't this basically just a naming contrivance used to give some mutts a high-falutin' "purebred" sounding moniker so they can be sold for higher prices? Tubezone 12:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I am jealous of others and have nothing better to do with my time than critise and malign anything that is not to my liking. Seriously though, all three domain names referenced in the article (tamaskan-dog.com, tamaskan-dog.co.uk, blustag-arcticbreeds.com) are registered to either "Lynn Sharkey" or "Jenny Sharkey", so these sites all seem to be run by the same individual or family. At best, this appears to be original research. Demiurge 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or not, I am unable to find any references outside of the single source identified above, so it fails WP:V. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it appears to be a hoax, or at the very least, serious spam. --Etacar11 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the previous unsigned comment is accurate, then this would seem to be a very new and certainly, according to everyone else, unrecognized breed, whose only proponents seem to possibly be the breeders themselves. While I do not believe that the article would necessarily qualify as Spam on that basis, I do think that, as of yet, the breed is not yet noted enough to qualify as notable according to wikipedia guidelines. Once a kennel club or other outside organization recognizes them, or they even have an article about them in Dog Fancy or some similar magazine that they can point to, that would change, but, as of yet, there really isn't what I consider compelling evidence available to me to convince me that this breed is both verifiable and notable yet. Badbilltucker 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am a graduate student with access to a tremendous number of online databases. I just performed a quick search on the word 'Tamaskan' in the likes of Academic Search Premier, BooksinPrint.com Professional, Dissertations and theses (Proquest), Electronic Collections Online, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. and did not get a single hit. Of course, there's always the possibility I am doing something wrong. If the folks who would like to retain this article would contact me and inform me of how to find credible, published scholarly writings referencing the Tamaskan Dog, I'll gladly look again. Please be kind; I'm trying to help and seek compromise with quality. Another idea I've had is to include mention of the Tamaskan Dog as a feature in the mixed breed article. Perhaps that has already been discussed, and if so, please accept my apologies as I get up to speed on all things Wiki ... Keesiewonder 16:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I said that I was here from UK to visit one of the breeders of these dogs and to see them for myself. I thought that it would be obvious to anyone that the breeder would be showing me lots of photographs and filling me in with all the details especially as I am well aware of all the bitching going on from the Northern Inuit and Utonagan people in UK which do nothing more than to show them up for the type of people that they are and I for one would never have bought a puppy from that kind of person. Also I have seen the many testimonials from people perfectly satisfied with their Tamaskan and copies of some of the nice emails that the Tamaskan Register have received from people enquiring about the breed. It was only when I was shown the article on this wikipedia site that we saw the comments above and I felt that I must write something in defense of this lovely breed of dog. I stick by my comments that only people with an axe to grind and suffering from pure jealosy would be bothered to find fault and ask for this article to be deleted. Deleted or not the Tamaskan is here to stay and will only increase in numbers as time goes by. What is it you are all frightend of? Is it the fact that they look more wolflike in appearance than the NI and Utonagan. Judging by the mails I have been shown and the comments I have heard myself they certainly look a whole lot better than either of the aforementioned breeds. Or is it because someone else is doing a good job of promoting their breed and getting on with their life. I have had a lovely stay here and am looking forward to receiving my puppy who will living a great life alongside my Dogue de Bordeaux who incidently started out life as a crossbreed of Bulldog and Bull Mastiff!! as didnt most breeds of today. Start out as a cross between something or other. Angela Broadbent UK.

The above appears to have been provided by 80.223.126.199 11:28, November 21, 2006.
Angela, I completely understand and would undoubtedly join your love of this breed if I had one of my own. We're writing an encyclopedia entry here, though, and need to have scholarly resources to back up our words. Personal experience is great, but it just doesn't cut it in academic writing unless you are a known authority with published works of your own. I don't think anyone is afraid of anything other than the claim that Wikipedia is not a good source of information, i.e. not a real encycopedia, unless we cite references for our information. Please help me find authoritative documentation on this breed, or please be patient until such documentation comes forth. Please also seriously consider opening an account on Wikipedia and signing your posts with that. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - According to wikipedia the definition of a hoax is 'A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real.' Tamaskans are obviously real, there is more than one picture of a Tamaskan dog on the websites, there is more than one breeder and more than one litter advertised from more than one kennel and in more than one country. They have a dog showing club in judgedogs.com with more than one Tamaskan entered owned by morehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaskan_Dog&action=edit&section=1 than one person. They also have more than one website and more than one breeders website, yes both of which have the same webmaster, but does that mean that the breed does not exist??? Therefore if this breed is a hoax it's an extremely elaborate one to try and trick wikipedia readers into believing there is a breed of dog which does not exist.Blufawn
Delete - Hoax may have been a bad choice of words on someone's part. I do not feel the breed is a hoax and I do not feel that these dogs do not exist. Obviously, they do. As a potential contributing writer, however, I feel we need credible, scholarly resources if the article is going to remain a part of the Wiki encyclopedia. We're looking for something more than a website by a breed fancier, photos from proud Tamaskan companions, and descriptions of personal experience. If we cannot find the credible material now, then when it does become available in the future, even if the current article is deleted, the breed will then be granted the space, with citations, that it deserves. Keesiewonder 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article fails WP:V, plain and simple.
Delete as above. article failsWP:V Scienter 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is spam meant to make the Tamaskan Dog breed known and to make money off breeding mutts under a high-falutin name. Wikipedia is not for advertising or for getting attention for something not notable yet. It's for things that are already notable. The Tamaskan dog is not yet notable any more than shimaltipoos are notable. There's nothing wrong with a mutt: you can get a loving one at any animal shelter. You don't need a high-falutin name and price to get one. --Charlene 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The price figures I've seen bandied about are $1300 - $1500 each, which sounds a bit steep to me for a dog of such uncertain provenance. I think it's about time to put this puppy to sleep (some might prefer a demise similar to Snowball II), and while we're at it, euthanize the rest of his sockpuppy litter, too. All seem to have incurable unverifiable porcine contranotability syndrome. Tubezone 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this cannot be verified by reliable sources.--Isotope23 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable canine concoction and (thanks to good research by Demiurge), spam by one particular breeder of these dogs.Montco 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Keesiewonder for explaining to me why this article should be put forward for deleting, I understand your point of view although I don't agree with it. But at least you explained it nicely unlike some who I don't think grasp the idea still. The deletion of this article is not to do with what language Tamaskan is in, or if you disagree with cross breeds or designer dogs or if you wish to argue which breeds were used in the making of this new breed. Or even if you like the website or think its unproffessional. Nor is this article spam : - An article considered advertisement to include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service. May I point out the Tamaskan Dog Register is not a business and they do not sell the puppies and The Tamaskan Dog Society of Great Britain do not give a product or service...yes I agree breeders do make a profit and you may wish to think about deleting the breeders advertisements on all dog breed pages.

We do actually have an article coming out in the next few months in a high profile dog magazine and so I agree you may delete the article if you so wish and I may replace it once the magazine has been published. Blufawn

Yeah, that's basically how Wikipedia works: If you can't really demonstrate this thing is really all that notable now, you won't get an article; However, once the thing does get really notable, no one has a problem with having the article around. Basically, that's all the deletion is about. The nominator also raises the point that there's possibility of this article is part of an elaborate scheme to make the subject more notable (in other words, covert marketing); Wikipedia is not the place to promote an idea, a product, or an animal breed for that matter. While I agree it's not outright spam, having an article about an animal breed that's only mentioned in a few places does raise slight concerns about the reason why the article is here.
If you allow me to do some funny analogies: This is kind of like an unreleased game mod. A "fan work" that's, while condoned, is not officially recognised by the company that makes the game. Fan-made works are generally on shaky ground in Wikipedia; one must prove they're really famous. Many articles about unreleased game mods have been deleted because they're about an unreleased mod with little press mentions or anything like. But once they get a magazine's attention, that's all nice and keepable. However, in case of dog breeds, you probably need more than just a single magazine article to sway the opinion. And all I'm saying is, simply, that patience is a virtue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks wwwwolf. I understand that Tamaskan need more media attention but I did originally feel as if I was subjected to personal attacks rather than just people telling me about the wikipedia rules which I had to look up for myself. They say we need official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies or statistics compiled by authoritative agencies.. very soon we are likely to have nearly all of these we do now have two official letter and statistics compiled by the BVA. It also says companies and organizations may be used as sources and I think The Tamaskan Dog Register counts as an organization as does The Tamaskan Society of Great Britain. I just didn't like being attacked personally by other Wikipedia members suggesting I had created the article purely for my own profit as a breeder of these dogs, when at the time I wrote the article in Febuary I only owned one male and was not a breeder, and even though now I own a female I am not planning a litter until 2008 as my female is too young so this article is certaintly not spam helping me 'make money off breeding mutts under a high-falutin name.' and I beleive that sort of insultive critisism does not belong on a talk page about reliable sources. Blufawn

Comment I agree with User:Blufawn that some people might have been a bit quick to accusation here, me among them. If I was, I apologize. Having said that, I think that one thing that might reduce the possibility of further such attacks in the future is if you create a userpage for yourself. Most users do that fairly quickly after signing up, and it is a major cause of suspicion when editors see that the link in the signature is red. Most such contributors are newcomers and/or single purpose accounts, that purpose generally being a not particular highly valued one (spam, advertising, attacks, and other things outside of wikipedia guidelines). Also, if the article is deleted, as it might be, I hope you realize that that deletion does not necessarily mean that the article cannot be recreated. I am aware of similar pages for reality show contestants that were created before the show was made, deleted, and then recreated later after the show aired, so it has been done before. You might also want to get in contact with either WikiProject Dogs or Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds, as they would be the two groups most likely to be able to help you improve the quality of the article when we have what wikipedia considers sufficient evidence of notability as per the existing notability guidelines for dogs. Badbilltucker 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Blufawn, I have to agree with Badbilltucker and emphasize that a user page of your own plus collaboration with the Wiki Projects mentioned will help tremendously. And, you're welcome for my explanation provided earlier; thanks for noticing I was trying to help! :-) Keesiewonder 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I have added some user page information (I think) but I don't quite know how to contact WikiProject Dogs or Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds Blufawn

Comment While I laud users Badbilltucker, Keesiewonder and Wwwwolf for their efforts to maintain civility and assumption of good faith in this discussion, I want to point out that as of today, there are no verifiable secondary reliable sources to establish notability, breeding community acceptance, or even existence of this breed. Everything I've turned up on searches are WP mirrors or sites that accept user submissions, (often the submissions are identical from one site to another), all of which seem to lead back to the author's web site on Tamaskans. The article itself is a conflict of interest as the author or people associated with the author seems to be the only source of information, and the links in the article lead only to web sites maintained by that group of people. Tubezone 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't agree more, Tubezone. My recommendation to delete the article is above and is 6 days old.Keesiewonder 01:08, 27 November 2006 (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.