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 merge to Yorkshire Terrier. Let's keep it civil, guys. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biewer Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article is about a non-notable breed, a long haired variant of the Yorkshire Terrier. The article is completey un-encyclopaedic in tone, full of fan cruft and weasel words and appears to be promotional of the Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc. Two "references" have been provided, one is a passing mention in an apparently self published German book "Die Pflege ihres Hundes: Band 2 Haaranlagen und Pflegebeispiele" which says that the breed is not recognised by official bodies. The other reference is is to the Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc website and doesn't seem to support the material in the article. I can find no RS to support the notability of this breed. I prodded it and the nomination was supported by two other editors and opposed by one other who removed the tag, citing the references mentioned above. I propose deletion and merging of any useful content to the Yorkshire Terrier article. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some made up dog breed by some seemingly disruptable breeder attempting to make it real; as of now, it is just a badly bred version of a Yorkshire that should not be given notability iwth a Wikpiedia article -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I don't know what more reliable source there can be for the Biewer Terrier that the co-originator of the breed, Geneticist that have spent 2 years testing and developing a signature for the Biewer Terrier, DogChannel.com which is an online site run by Dog Fancy and Dog World, and Carl Yochum president of the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America who has written an article for showsightonline.com.

  I was told my views don't matter, which is fine, but I am an authority on the breed and one of the board members of the BTCA that is in constant contact which Mrs. Biewer. I don't know how much more reliable that can get. I have never posted anything but facts about the breed. I have bred Yorkies for 18 years and researched this breed for six years. I rely on the facts that have been presented, not opinion, not even my own opinion.

  As for Collectonian's opinion, am I to assume you know more about the Breed than the president of the YTCA? Please read his article at http://www.showsightonline.com/ Article name: Ramblings from Carl C. Yochum President YTCA.

  Or the geneticists working for MARS Veterinary that have broken down 39 chromosomes plus 6 different genes on chromosome 20 and developed a breed signature for the Purebred Biewer Terrier http://www.wisdompanel.com/breedinfo/breedsdetected.html.

  What reliable resources are you basing your comments on?

  If the truth cannot be posted about the breed, I am all for deleting the page. As soon as UKC or AKC accept the breed, I'll be back to write an article then. Thank You--Zarina1 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You are using Wikipedia for self promotion of your made up breed and its board; and you clearly are neither neutral nor actually speaking from the standpoint of actual Wikipedia guideline and policy.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I removed the PROD, mainly because a google books seach http://books.google.com/books?q=Biewer+Terrier showed books that covered this breed. "Dogs by Design: How to Find the Right Mixed Breed for You" did match, but didn't have a snippet, and "Die Pflege ihres Hundes: Band 2 Haaranlagen und Pflegebeispiele" (in german) has a snippet. The coverage found is not very impressive, but it is there. If the breed is mentioned in several books, I refuse to believe that it is "some made up dog breed by some seemingly disruptable breeder attempting to make it real". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets are not significant coverage. The first book is a listing of "cutsy" names for designer mutts (indicating that this is, in fact, not a real breed but another of the made up high priced mutts being marketed these days). Without translation, the German source appears to be nothing more than a one-line mention along the same lines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Once again I am asking Colletonian to produce your credentials on either breed. What are your statements based on? What Wikipedia guidelines and policy are you following with your condescending remarks? You obviously have not read Carl Yochum's article. This is not a made up breed. Read the guidelines for purebred acceptance with AKC and UKC. It's a new breed being developed by all the correct guidelines for new breed acceptance.

You can visit this web site and click on news. This is the association that governs the IABCA here in America. http://www.uci-ev.de/english_site/index_en.htm --Zarina1 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need credentials, thanks. Its called common sense and actual research. You threw a high price tag on a mutt and called it a breed yet no one recognizes it as such. Wikipedia is not here to make your mutt notable. Go get actual coverage, not a single article, then maybe the breed will be notable one day, though hopefully not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, I looked at the Showsight issue pointed to by the original poster. It is an editorial about several breeds and does mention this one, but notes its information came from the "breed"s website and not from personal knowledge and expertise. Wisdom Panel is a commerical product listing various "breeds" without any actual discussion. Again, go finish establishing the mutt and actually get it some notability, and learn some civility while you're at it. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of future notability, nor does it cater to people proclaiming that they are the only ones with the authority to speak about the breed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that user Collectonian has removed a couple of lengthy comments from other editors arguing to keep this article. The reason given in the edit history is that these comments were uncivil. I am really not sure that this is appropriate behaviour on the part of Collectonian (though I'm sure you thought you were doing the right thing). Firstly, while I agree that some of what was written was not conducive to a civil discussion, I do not think that it was any more uncivil than some of the comments made by Collectonian earlier in the discussion (please look at the edit history to judge for youselves). Secondly, some of what was removed were arguments to keep the article and sources provided by other editors. I suggest that Collectonian should reinsert the deleted comments and that all users involved in this discussion should try to control their emotions and discuss things in a civilised manner. Mah favourite (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted comments were from the same person (the IP was also the same editor who is not allowed to say keep twice), and she has apologized for the uncivil comments. Further, the sources were all the same as listed above, so no sourcing was lost. She is, of course, welcome to repost the remarks without the incivility, but I'd rather she did it herself than having me modify them partially to remove the personal attacks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would not disagree that the article is unencyclopedic and full of original research however the breed does seem to satisfy notability as there is lots of coverage of it. If it is kept then I'll have a go at sorting the article out and reducing it down to verifiable material (if no one beats me to it). It seems to me that the controversy about the status of the breed will make quite an interesting article (assuming sources can be found), it just needs to be written in a balanced way. Mah favourite (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state where this " lots of coverage of it" is? So far all taht has been shown are some very unreliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going on the amount of related stuff that came up in a quick google search but looking through it I really can't find any reliable third party sources to base an article on. I am withdrawing my vote becasue although I instinctively feel that the topic is notable I cannot find any reliable sources (and I won't be disappointed if the article is deleted as I in no way support the topic). Mah favourite (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Yorkshire Terrier. Insufficient substantive appearances in sources for an article. May be worth a mention in Yorkshire Terrier, as a nonstandard color variant of the Yorkie (rather than the article's current characterization of the B.T. as a "breed"). Given the lack of sources and that the article says both breeds are/can be born of the same breed ("Yorkshire Terrier dogs and Biewer Terrier dogs can often be found in the same litter"), I see no evidence that a) this is anything other than a tri-colored Yorkie that should be mentioned in the Yorkie article if anywhere, or b) this is anything notable enough to have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticfluffy (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 December 2009

• Comment I do not believe the Biewer Terrier should be merged with the Yorkshire Terrier information. We have proven that the Biewer Terrier is not a Yorkshire Terrier and a full 14 page, detailed report was given to the president of the YTCA, Carl Yochum proving the difference.

I think if Colletonian wants to be talked to with respect, she/he needs to talk to others with respect. She/He has no knowledge of the breed yet continually calls it a mutt. Her/Him's input is without merit and should not be allowed. She/He is obviously biased for some reason.

I have said the article should be removed if the truth isn't posted. The constant reference to a Yorkshire Terrier throughout the article is ridiculous. We are on the verge of UKC acceptance and when that happens we will come back and write an article then. This is a new breed and there are steps that have to be followed to get it recognized, it doesn't mean that is non notable. If the president of the Yorkshire Terrier club accepts it as a separate breed, then who is collectonian to argue with a man that has an exceptional reputation with the AKC?

I also do not know why the co-originator of the breed would not be considered a reliable source. Why the UCI that governs the IABCA dog shows in America would not be considered reliable. I understand there are many German organizations without merit, but this organization is the head of the only American show venue that issues International titles.

--Zarina1 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarina1 (talk • contribs)

I would also like to add that in order to have a breed listed on dogchannel.com it has to have been proven to be a purebred and the Biewer Terrier is listed. --Zarina1 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Yorkshire Terrier. Per above: Insufficient substantive appearances in sources for an article. I can't find hardly any sources for this breed. Ikip (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oy. It's a real breed, we can show that it exists, and the determination of the Yorkshire Terrier Club is of value, but reliable sources are quite thin - too thin for an article, unfortunately. But it's a new breed, so that may change over time. I would recommend that we Merge this article and its sourcing to Yorkshire Terrier, acknowledging that additional sourcing might make a stand-alone article possible. As it stands, this article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect - I'm in much agreement with Ultraexactzz. At this time, I think a stand-alone article is premature. For me, I think the acknowledged statement "It is not recognized by any formal or major kennel club" is pretty damning, at the current time. I am unconvinced that the given sources are strong enough to let the article survive on its own. That is not to say, of course, that it will never be suitable for its own article. Additionally, I would like to comment that none of us need to show our credentials when it comes to dogs/dog breeds. Such knowledge is not required. Helpful, sure, but our purpose here is to determine the article's notability based on policy, and I like to think that one of the strengths of this project is that a user doesn't need to have expert-level knowledge of a topic in order to determine its significance or merits for inclusion. Demanding such credentials, or stating that someone is not fit to comment on this discussion due to a lack of such credentials, is probably something I would avoid doing. My apologies for this long comment. Everyone, let's stay civil. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 17:11, 20 December 2009 (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.