Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horse breeds in DAD-IS

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of horse breeds in DAD-IS

[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)

Fails notability for standalone lists and WP:GNG. This article is a table of entries drawn from a single online database, one which isn't a reliable source itself (see Talk:DAD-IS § Evaluation concludes DAD-IS is generally unreliable for horse topics). Neither this article nor its associated article DAD-IS shows any sources which are independent of the subject, and certainly no significant coverage. All citations are published by FAO, the host of the database. Also fails under WP:NOTCATALOG. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organizations. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV of the DAIDS system in google books; some of which are books on horses specifically (see my search results here). While the entire list may not be discussed, the concept of the list is which is enough to satisfy WP:NLIST. The fact that a current DAIDS list necessitates linking to WP:PRIMARY materials is not a bad thing.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of things listed in the DAD-IS is, among other things, in constant need of review and updates. Further, the list merely states if a particular horse breed exists within a given nation, regardless of origin or suitability. For the United States, the list is particularly poor — a few years back it even confused slang terms, listing them as standardized breeds. While the DAD-IS itself may be useful to determine if a breed exists at all, particularly for rare breeds in the developing world, a detailed list here on WP is unneeded. Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of things listed in a list that's 'Generally unreliable' and not an RS? That's going to go down well, isn't it? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do not delete, obviously – it's comprehensively sourced and meets WP:NLIST. The FAO is the single most significant world-level agency collecting and publishing data on all aspects of agriculture and agricultural resources, including animal and plant genetic resources, water, forestry and climate; its databases and publications are widely and frequently cited in academic publications. But even if it weren't, there's nothing to stop anyone from adding other sources to the list. A good one to start with might be this: Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944 – in fact I'll go and add that in a moment. Did the nominator even actually do a WP:BEFORE search for additional sources?

I created this page (as a very new user) in 2011 because I'd been told that the List of horse breeds could not contain red links, and wanted to see what horse breed articles were missing from the project. I note that there's no problem with red links in most of our other lists of livestock breeds (e.g., cattle, chickens, donkeys, goats, geese, pigs, sheep, turkeys, water buffalo – but not ducks). I agree that the page title is not optimal, and suggest one of two options to remedy that without losing the content:

move it to List of horse breeds by country; or, perhaps preferable but considerably more work:
merge it with the List of horse breeds (would you be happy with that, Montanabw?).

Either's fine with me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers: You are arguing for another page, but not this one. Nothing in Mason's contributes to this list-article's notability. If this list was simply a tool for your work, then it should be in your userspace. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been some confusion. I am not arguing about the notability of the database, but that the information contained within the database is not a reliable source for much of anything because of the nature of its data collection and zero oversight of the database contents, making the database a self-published source. The database itself is notable; the data in it is not. Therefore making a static copy of the database contents (which is this list-article) is both presenting information as reliable (which it isn't) and is just a mirror of a database (see What Wikipedia is not). If someone wants to get this information they can, and should, go directly to the database and get it themselves. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of horse breeds: or if the author prefers, move it to his own userspace. There's no question that the FAO DAD-IS database is notable, with abundant SIGCOV. But this is not an article about DAD-IS, but a reformatted excerpt/query from it, which adds little encyclopedic value beyond what we already have in List of horse breeds. I understand that the list serves as a useful content creation tool for its author, but that would be better accomplished via a userpage. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I read through the linked discussion and appreciate the poster's concerns. However, the issue under consideration is the notability of this specific data set, not the accuracy or value of the United Nations database. I did a quick Google search and found several secondary sources that specifically discuss the DAD-IS equine data. WP:NLIST says "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That means the article can be improved to meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone list article. For example, the lede could contain information about how the data was collected, why it is important, and how it is being used. Because the article has the potential to be improved, AfD guidelines state that it should be retained. With regards suggestion to redirect, this list includes location, something that is lacking in List of horses. Rublamb (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument slips into that gap between discussing DAD-IS and making copies of DAD-IS. Your point of I found several secondary sources that specifically discuss the DAD-IS equine data is still talking about the main database DAD-IS. Those might well be reliable sources for some content in article DAD-IS discussing the equine data set. However, there is a big difference between "compiling a set" to make a standalone list-article such as List of sculptures by Auguste Rodin or List of Russian composers, and a Wikipedia editor making a copy from a single online database (original research from a primary source). We even have List of online databases and Lists of databases, but I have yet to find any list-articles within Wikipedia which are copies of database contents because that violates WP:WWIN. Even if the lede were improved (with content that I think should go to DAD-IS) I would object to the "copy" of the database. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that I found sources that discuss this specific subset of the database, not the database as a whole. This meets WP:NLIST because it shows that this specific sub-set of data is notable. The fact that the lede can be expanded is key. The lede is an important part of a list article, not a just a throwaway or random addition, because it provides context for notability. (The ledes of FL articles are quite long and could often stand on their own as a text article).

But I do understand your concern that the content of the list comes from a single source. I went back and looked at the DAD-IS entries. There is an array of data for each horse type that is not replicated in the Wikipedia article. Here are some of the fields not copied: most common name, transboundary breed name, geographical classification, breed classification, risk level, SDG local risk status, transboundery breed risk level, local names, description, uses and ecosystem services, cultural value, cultural role, genetic features, specific reproduction characteristics, genetic features, environment role, adaptability to marginal land, morphology information, coulours, performance information, age of breeding animals, birth weight, age of maturity, milk information, prolificacy, management conditions, population data, effective population size, breeding programme, conservation programme, organizations, publications. Thus, this list is not even close to being a copy of the database, but is instead a list of what can be found in the database. I realize this is a fine line, but there is a difference between relying heavily on a single source and copying that source in total. Nor do I find this to be original research; that would be the editor collecting and publishing their own data on horses, rather than using a source. Rublamb (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Rublamb and 4meter4. WP:NLIST does appear to be met. I did read the argument that we don't really need the list, but to that I say we don't really need Wikipedia either. Its notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Even though this is of no interest to me, it hasn't met the criteria for deletion, and hasn't failed the criteria for inclusion. To me, that means keep. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2024 (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.