Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thuringian forest donkey

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 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thuringian forest donkey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No source cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are sources describing this breed - 1 2 3. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 3 reliable sources provided above seem good enough for me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recognized breed, sources are readily available (but obviously should have been added to the article ab initio...). Added two good ones to the article that seem to cover most of the material. Inline refs would be desirable though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY, now it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above and WP:HEY. Cuoxo (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added some sources and a little sourced content to the page (a good deal of it is duplicated, so it isn't as much as it might seem, and that's not much). This is recognised and reported to DAD-IS as a breed, so I suppose we have to accept that it is one; on the other hand, it's a tiny group of about twenty donkeys with nothing much to distinguish them from any other donkeys, and of minimal notability or encyclopaedic interest. I usually argue that any breed with official national recognition deserves an independent article, so I suppose that this does too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: good call on the "Canadian Journal of Applied Sciences" - looks like it's an IDOSI journal [1], with the attendant lack of strict peer review and dodgy credentials; didn't notice when I added that. Still, recognized breed and such. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 March 2021 (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.