Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidisaint Kennels

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 of the debate was delete, following extended discussion. BD2412 T 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heidisaint Kennels

don't see that listing all breeders or kennel of dogs or other animals is encyclopedic, even if well-known, unless there's some major reason to do so Elf | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Being well-known and having verifiable info available on the subject should be sufficient reason for an article. I fail to see any valid reason to delete right now. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  OK, I should've clarified that "well known" came from the new stub article; I'm not sure how one defines a "well-known" dog breeder or kennel. In my area, e.g., there are probably a couple dozen of well-known breeders of border collies, because their puppies are all over the place here. There are probably dozens of others all over the world like that, just for border collies. There are hundreds of other breeds. "Well known" has to be better defined, IMHO. Elf | Talk 20:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Listing all breeders may not be considered encyclopedic by some, but to those interested in the breeds there are specific kennels that are recognized as making significant contributions to the preservation and promotion of the breed, as well as signficant influence on the breed lines. Within North American Saints there are some lines that you will be hard pressed not find in most pedigrees at some point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MtHermit (talk • contribs).

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. As it is now, it's an ad for a website/company. Ifnord 04:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:MtHermit (who created the entry) is actually right. Delete unless the article is expanded to explain why they are "well-known" - by providing third-party sources that demonstrate how they contributed to the development or promotion of the breed. Pilatus 04:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, non-encylopedic, ad for a specific breeder. If there is a reason that this breeder should be listed (first, most important to a dog breed, etc). In this case, no. - Trysha ^(talk) 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Eusebeus 07:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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.