Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bramble Cat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, reliability of sources was not established, but Good Luck with the recognition. ~ trialsanderrors 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bramble Cat

The Bramble Cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

not a recognized breed; article appears to have been created for self-promotion H-ko 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Some person's attempt at advertising a non-existent breed. pschemp | talk 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources are discovered that are independent of the cattery. —Celithemis 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE I am the author of the article and no pro at Wikipedia - in fact, I have no idea where to respond to this comment. However, I do believe that Wikipedia should be for everyone and include all cat breeds. Here is my case and please excuse me if I am not doing this correctly. The "Bramble" is accepted by the Rare and Exotic Feline Registry [1]. It is a new breed and not an attempt to "self promote". There are several breeders now working with the Bramble. I am not sure that I understand where the "self promote" comes from. I am the founder of the breed and have my name in as such. We have just started working toward TICA inclusion. Shouldn't Wikipedia cover new breeds of cats? I would certainly agree to have my name removed from the article, if that is what is causing the problem, but it seems that the founder of the breed should be included. Just let me know. I am a long term reputable cat breeder and member of TICA (The International Cat Association) in good standing. Please tell me the issue about this article. No cats are even for sale. This is a breed of cat, just like any breed. I can type in Sphynx, Siamese, etc... and get to an article. Again, if it is just the founder of the breed's name, please let me know. It seems that Wikipedia should include articles on cat breeds. There are new breeds and historical breeds that have gone away. If Wikipedia is going to be a source for information, it should be a source for all things. --Garybr 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not cover all things. It covers things that are significant enough to be the subject of multiple, reliable sources. In order for the article to be kept, you would need to demonstrate that there are good sources that are independent of your cattery, such as newspaper or magazine stories, that can be used to verify the article. —Celithemis 10:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To add to what has already been said, the Bramble article mentions the Bengal. If you look at that page, multiple cat societies are listed with the breed standards for each. The Bramble cannot be found at any of these societies. So far, you and the Rare and Exotic Feline Registry are the only ones who even mention this cat. And the REFR doesn't seem to be a recognized registry in the cat world much like the AKC of the dog world. For one, their web site is hosted at homestead.com and for two, the registration of new breeds seems to only require filling out a nine question form and paying $25. And lastly, the issue with you writing the article is that you can be biased. If someone writes their own autobiography, they're probably going to come off sounding really good and not include any criticism people may have of that person. Since you are the originator of this breed, you are inherently biased. Please see WP:AUTO for Wikipedia's policies on autobiographies to help understand why I made this comparison. And please also see WP:NPOV to understand why Wikipedia must maintain a Neutral Point of View. Until some third party verifiable source comes out, my opinion is that this article should be deleted. Dismas|(talk) 11:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don't have anything else to add. This is a brand new cat breed and will be advancing quickly. I was under the false impression that Wikipedia would want articles such as this. People go to Wikipedia to find sources of information that are unavailable in other locations. Cat breeds advance just like dog breeds do. No breed starts out in AKC. The breed has to be developed and then works toward advancement in TICA and CFA - which are two registries, but not the only ones. Usually, a cat breed starts in one place and then works for inclusion in one of the above registering bodies. The Peterbald, Sphynx, and Bengal all started this way. I am the longest standing breeder of the Peterbald in the U.S. and was integral in the acceptance of that breed by TICA. I will be doing the same with the Bramble.

However, if this is not appropriate, please remove the article. I will now know that Wikipedia is not for new information. No hard feelings - this has been educational. --Garybr 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also,I am wondering when the Peterbald, Bengal, Sphynx etc. were added to Wikipedia. Were they added only after TICA acceptance? The Bengal and Peterbald are not accepted in CFA yet. Also, when was the Border Collie added? Remember, AKC went a long period of time before accepting that breed. I am not even sure if it is yet accepted, but believe that it finally made it in. This was despite much popularity of the breed for years before that.

The Bramble is, also, included on the Messybeast site. That is at [2] I do not know if that will make a difference or not, though. Please do what you feel is necessary. --Garybr 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The dates at which articles have been added to the site can be found by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the article and going to the earliest date. The articles you asked about were started on the following dates:
  • Bengal - 20 July, 2002
  • Peterbald - 26 September, 2005
  • Sphynx - 24 July, 2002
And the Border Collie was added on 10 October, 2002. But take into account that Wikipedia is entirely volunteer written so just because something was added on a certain date doesn't mean that it has any significance related to that particular subject. It's just the date that someone noticed that there wasn't an article about an already established and verifiable breed, so they decided to add the article. Dismas|(talk) 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ResponseIf you only accept entries on breeds that are accepted by one of the two registering bodies, then please remove my article. All I ask is that you keep this same standard when it applies to other breeds of dogs and cats. There are several other new breeds of domestic animals out there now. I was one of the instrumental people in the development of the Peterbald breed in the United States and getting it accepted to TICA. The Peterbald gained championship status in May of 2006 with TICA. It is not CFA recognized yet. The Bengal is not CFA recognized yet either. I have always used Wikipedia to find out about things that I cannot find otherwise. This changes my view on that. Apparently, there should not be an article on here that is not recognized by certain registering bodies. I am not some person that has put together two cats in my backyard. I am a TICA member in good standing. This breed will go through the same steps as any other new breed. Thank you for your time. Please remove the article. I would rather it be removed than to have that big sign on it stating that it is up for deletion. That makes this breed look like it is not something real and out there. --Garybr 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an attack on you or your integrity as a breeder. However, a new breed (which, by the way, I could find no mention of on either of the links you provided) which has not yet stood the test of time doesn't really belong in an encyclopedic website such as this. Ten or twenty years down the road, the breed may no longer exist. On the other hand, it may gain supporters who continue to expand the breed. In that case, at some point down the road, an article may be appropriate. You may find it beneficial to read the policies on what Wikipedia is and isn't as well as the guidelines for contributions. --H-ko 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I did find a one-sentence comment about the Bramble cat under the History of the Peterbald, and a few photos, all of one individual Bramble cat. Still, not much information there. --H-ko 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gary, this article needs to be deleted for a couple of reasons:

(1) We try to avoid "conflict of interest". You seem to be the creator and principal advocate of this breed, so there's an immediate concern that you may be biased in the way you have written this article. As the previous comment notes, this isn't an attack on you or your integrity as a breeder, it's just one of the safeguards we try to work with. (2) The article is weak in the quality of references it provides. Right now there are three references provided: one is to your own site, which gets an automatic disqualification ( "conflict of interest" ), one is to a site which appears to belong to someone who knows you well enough to help your business via a link ( "conflict of interest" again ), and one is to the "Rare and Exotic Feline Registry". The last of these looks superficially more useful, but when I look at the REFR site I find that anyone can register a breed without any independent oversight; it looks to me as if that's what you've done, so the quality of independence of this reference is also suspect. As H-ko says above, and as I'd like to strongly emphasise: this is in no way meant to question your integrity and skills. If the breed continues to exist, and takes off, it will certainly attain coverage by Wikipedia. The time for that, though, is not yet. Yes, it's important to share news about new breeds, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. The best thing you can do is continue to develop the Bramble Cat, and seek to advance its cause in professional, hobby and trade publications and websites: if it's as fine a breed as is seems from your website, it will be a great success, and the Wikipedia entry will happen when the time is right ( and, probably, when you've completely forgotten about this discussion ). With best wishes for the breed. WMMartin 14:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • response I have asked for the article to be deleted. I don't mind if Wikipedia does this, because it is hurting the breed and my name for that big sign to be on top of the article. As for REFR, they are a legitimate registering body for new breeds. The process is not as easy as just paying the $25. There is a genetic committee and process. Again, please delete the article, but PLEASE delete all articles of any cats that do not have TICA or CFA acceptance yet. According to this, they are not a breed yet. Also, remember this for future articles that are written on other topics. Something does not exist on Wikipedia until it is on many other resource lists. I am not angry, even though this appears that I am. I simply wish for the article to be deleted. Do I do this or does someone else? I have seen something that states that the article cannot be blanked. I want the article taken down as quickly as possible. --Garybr 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It isn't as simple as that. An article written is not the property of the contributor; it belongs to the community as a whole. The process for deletion, as initiated by me, involves putting it up for a vote and then acting on the majority opinion of the community. Since most of the people who have commented on it so far seem to be in favor for its deletion, that is probably what will happen. However, due process still needs to be followed. I don't believe that being put up for deletion really casts a topic in a negative light. There are many valid reasons to delete an article which do not reflect on the subject. However, that is just my personal opinion.--H-ko 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ResponseWell, I know hundreds of cat breeders, so I could always get them to come on here and give their opinion in favor of keeping the article, but I won't do that. I think this is a pretty silly argument.--Garybr 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Modified I have changed the article some, since that seems within the rules of Wikipedia. All references to myself have been removed. If that satisfies the experts above, who I am unsure of how much breed development experience they have, the article should remain. If not, I would still prefer that this article be completely deleted - quickly! I am so tired of checking on it daily to see if it is gone yet. Wikipedia has truly disappointed me on this. If this chooses to be a source for information, there is nothing wrong with showing a new breed that is in development. It is a fact, no matter if some believe that it is not. Acceptance of the breed by TICA or CFA do not validate what breeds are in development. What if I wrote an article on the Mexican Hairless cat breed. It is no longer in existence and was never a TICA or CFA breed, but it was still a fact in history. If Wikipedia wants to limit itself to only some facts, that is certainly a choice. Since this is a "user" built source, though, Wikipedia could be so much more. I appreciate the comments above and know that none were meant to be offensive. However, as a respected breeder and shower in the cat fancy, this has been truly humiliating. I will continue to work toward the continued success of this breed and will not be using Wikipedia as a source for any information in the future. It is painfully obvious that this is not the purpose of this site.--Garybr 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We've told you that the debate lasts for five days. We're not trying to humiliate anyone by keeping it here. There is no cabal that is out to get you or the breed. As for the Mexican hairless breed you mention, if outside, independant sources can verify the existence of the breed, then yes, an article could be written about it. It's the same thing for, let's say, a dinosaur. There aren't any around anymore but those species have been cataloged by scientific journals. And unless you told a number of people about the article, there probably aren't very many people at all who have seen the article or seen the AFD notice on it. It's only linked from four other pages. One is this page, another is the log of all AFDs, and a third is from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats where someone has asked for people who are more familiar with cats to please weigh in on the matter. I, at least, don't doubt that you've bred this cat but simply doing something unique isn't verifiable or possibly even notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts and figures. Dismas|(talk) 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • response So, what you are saying is that if the Bramble were to disappear like the Mexican Hairless, before it is recognized by TICA, then an article could be written about it THEN? My point is that a fact is a fact. This breed does exist and it was created by a reputable cat breeder that is known in those circles. Careful planning and years of work went into the creation of this new and exciting breed. The Bramble will be a household name, much like the Siamese or other known breeds in the future. This was no "fly by night" endeavor. It is shocking to me that Wikipedia does not want information such as this to be included. --Garybr 12:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If the Bramble were to dissappear right now, no, it would still not warrant an article because it hasn't been mentioned by third party independent sources, notable cat breeder organizations (such as this TICA seems to be), or scientific journals. Please see Wikipedia:Notability and think of that applying for cat breeds. I don't doubt that a lot of time and effort goes into creating a new breed of cat. Think of it this way... An automobile engineer creates a new design for a car. He does this in his spare time, i.e. he's not ordered to do so by the company that he works for. He shows this new car to a number of his colleagues and they all agree that it's a fascinating design and really different. If the engineer were to die and nobody were to pick up his work and carry it on, an article should not be written. At this point, an article shouldn't be made according to Wikipedia's policies because we are not a primary source of information. All encyclopedias, such as Britannica or Wikipedia, are a tertiary source. Now, this engineer gets an article written about the new car by independent third parties such as Car & Driver or Popular Science magazines or even industry publications. At this point the existence of the car can be verified by reputable sources which are well known, in this case, not only to auto enthusiasts but also to the general public. Now this tertiary source, Wikipedia, can have an article about the car. So, as it stands now, the Bramble, while it has had a large amount of time and effort devoted to it, has not been reported on by literary sources such as Cat Fancy magazine, the TICA (just using that as an example as a recognized reputable source), or scientific journals. Policies that I have thought of and tried to work into this example include Notability, Verifiability, No original research, and most specifically, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not with special emphasis on point #2 found here. Does this help? Dismas|(talk) 13:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ResponseThis now seems like it is less of a policy issue than a personal problem with new cat breeds. If you saw my records, you would know that this is extremely difficult and time consuming process. I do it because I love the cat. As for literary sources, it is nice to know that "Cat Fancy" qualifies as that. Every breed that you see in existence today starts somewhere. The Bramble is a new breed and will be recognized as time goes by. If Wikipedia does not acknowledge a new breed until it is in a magazine, then I wouldn't consider Wikipedia a good source for information. The fact that Wikipedia is able to publish articles that cannot be found in other places, be on the cutting edge, and be open to being fluid, is an advantage - or not, depending on the willingness to do that.--Garybr 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a problem with new cat breeds. If I had something against cats, I wouldn't have three of them myself. Nowhere on this site does it say that Wikipedia is on the cutting edge or that it is the place for publishing of new information. Right at the top of the page under the logo it says "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia" and as I've pointed out, encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a good source of information, just as any other encyclopedia, but it is not the place for original publications. This same point has been explained to many people who thought as you do that Wikipedia should accept all information whether it can be cited or not. We've had people try to publish their new theories about philosophical concepts as well. I'm sure they put a great deal of thought into them after having read the articles but they weren't documented anywhere notable, verifiable, etc. Therefore this is not the place for them. Through this whole process I've been trying to explain to you that an article about the Bramble is welcome once the breed has become recognized by third parties and those who deal in this sort of thing. I've tried to explain why the REFR is not thought to be a standards organization that we can base our inclusion criteria on. This is in no way a personal thing against you or against your breed. Dismas|(talk) 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • response I feel that a cat breed is much different than a theory. Since I have 3 of them looking up at me right now, it qualifies as a fact - not even a well thought out theory. So, I think that comparison is apples and oranges. It comes down to you not believing that REFR is a qualified source to verify the breed. However, all breeds start in this fashion. Any new breed in the last 30 years has gone through a process such as this. TICA is not the only registering body, although that will be the next step for the breed - and it is a breed. Why not include something that is living and breathing on this planet - especially one that is recognized by a registering body? What made TICA the only source for cat breeds? I am responding to this above what someone else has already stated about TICA - it is no different than REFR - just larger. REFR is a common place for new breeds to be registered. So, to repeat myself, the Bramble IS a breed of cat. It is a breed that exists today. It is just starting out, so it isn't a household name yet. The only choice for Wikipedia is if it wants to include facts that are not household names yet - or stick to only things that everyone already knows.
    • So find other users that feel as you do. I'm not the only one that's allowed to post my opinion. I'm not even an admin so I can't close the debate and delete the article. Try some of the users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats. Dismas|(talk) 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • responseI have no need to do that. --Garybr 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly, there are problems with the page, but the article feels well-intentioned. It is in no way an autobiography or advertising, and despite the WP:COI I think the author has done a good job of keeping the article fairly unbiased. A recognized cat breed is notable. If some random person decides that their pet cat should be called a new breed, then that 'breed' is not notable. In this case, I feel like trusting that, while this isn't an accepted breed now, it will become one, and will be notable. It seems silly just to postpone the creation of the article until the cat becomes a TICA breed. There are many worse articles on wikipedia. Also, let's not bite the newcomers, and I hope, Garybr, that this doesn't discourage you from writing for wikipedia in the future. Lesnail 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    WP:NOT a crystal ball. Your prediction for the future that this will become a breed is irrelevent. I predict it won't become a breed. There, now we're even. However, wikipedia is written on what exists now, not what might exist in the future. As far as I'm concerned, this is someone reproducing with their pet cats and calling it a breed. Regardless, it is NOT NOTABLE right now. pschemp | talk 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • response Thank you. It is heartening to know that someone, other than my collegues, believe that this is worthy of an entry. It would be easy for me to get other known cat breeders into the discussion, but I have chosen not to do that. I have never had to defend myself like this before. I am very disheartened by this whole episode. My point throughout this has been to please delete the article, if it is not deemed worthy. I will go about my way and know that Wikipedia is not the place to find this type of information. Someone else can write an article on this breed in the future. I have truly enjoyed Wikipedia before this time - thinking that I could find things here that are new and fresh, since it is not a stale source. Apparently, that is not always the case.--Garybr 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Keep" I would love to know what 'makes' a breed. The fact that there are breeders breeding this particular breed of cats should mean something. TICA or CFA is nothing but a club of people. What makes you say they should have the decision to accept or not accept a certain breed but REFR which is another cat association should not have that right? Discrimination comes into play here and I believe that could cause trouble from someone if this type article is deleted. Besides all that, TICA does accept new breeds for registration. They may put experimental on the papers but they do group new breeds together under their breed name, they do accept money to register them and they do give out registration papers with that breed name on them. This article on the Bramble Cat breed has as much right as any other article to be here. If it is deleted, that shows that Wikipedia is not interested in gathering 'all' knowledge but discriminates on whose knowledge. Not a place I will support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.91.86 (talk • contribs) (Note the anon commenting here has edits to nothing but this page.)

Nothing has a "right" to be here without notability, independent sources and a lack of original research. The Bramble cat has none of these. Frankly, I don't care what you support, but wikipedia has rules for what is included, whether you agree with them or not. pschemp | talk 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepA cat breed without original research????? That does not make sense. Of course there is original research. It is all original. There is no other cat breed like it. Years of work went into it. If anything, it is all original research.--Garybr 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • response Thank you for the above comments. It is true that TICA and CFA should not be the only sources to verify. They are groups of people just like REFR. TICA accepts new breeds just the same as these others. I guess we shall find out soon if Wikipedia values this article enough to keep it.

--Garybr 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Definite distinct breed. It's silly to claim that a breed only comes into existence when one of two clubs gets around to declaring so. A breed is a line of animal being bred for specific characteristics, and there were breeds for thousands of years before these clubs. --OinkOink 23:27, 28 January 2007 (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.