Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suphalak

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. Closing as keep per consensus on the new additions onto the article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suphalak

[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)

Only one non-primary source about the breed and it's a dead link excluded from the Wayback Machine. Doesn't meet notability even with the mention as it's just someone's attempt at creating a cat breed, all the well sourced information is unrelated to the supposed breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Copying my note from the talk page: "From what I could find, the position that Suphalak is distinct from Burmese indeed appears to come from people associated with TIMBA. But independent secondary sources have covered their breeding attempts and efforts to register the breed, at least as lately as 2022, so the original research concerns can be remedied by trimming the content down to what has been published. As the article mentions, most other people in Thailand just treat the name as a synonym for Burmese, but it takes the TIMBA's position as fact so that's also an NPOV issue." --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources include Nation TV[1] (2015), Matichon Daily[2] (2016), The Standard[3] (2017), Thai PBS[4] (2021), and Channel 8[5] (2022). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Thai so I can't give much input on these sources. I looked at the Thai article and it appears to be just about the Burmese itself.

I think the information would be better off put into Burmese (cat) as it doesn't even seem to be recognised as distinct aside from this TIMBA. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging SMcCandlish, who raised issues with the article back in 2019. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all things, I'd suggest to redirect without prejudice to Burmese (cat) for now. There are probably enough secondary sources that have reported on TIMBA's position to support a much trimmed down version that properly balances the viewpoints, but until someone makes the effort to do that rewrite it'd be better to just point the name to what most other people use it for. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and summarize (from the sourced material, not from the entire article most of which is unsourced), but merge that to List of experimental cat breeds, since there is no evidence cited in our article about what the foundation stock was, including whether it was Burmese at all. What's happened here is that legendarily, there were solid copper-colored cats in the region mentioned in a work of very uncertain date (1351–1767). Modern breeders have attempted to "recreate" this alleged landrace variety as a new standardized breed, from stock they are cagey about. But their claims that this is "an ancient breed" going back to the Ayutthaya Kingdom cannot be sustained; this is typical breeder marking nonsense. Next, our own material has gotten a bunch of junk mixed in, including contradictory passages (first a claim that people were "confused" into thinking that the Suphalak was solid-colored and then a "correction" that it was solid colored), a bunch of name-dropping of individual non-notable breeders (more marketing), plus non-neutral material like personal-opinion claims about what a "proper Suphalak" is, and a bunch of unsourced claims about their genetics, etc. The fact that there are a grand total of six cats in the breeding program is not actually encouraging that this passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE at all, though a summary paragraph at the experimental breeds list would arguably serve readers better than no information at all, since people are apt to run into mentions of this at cat-related clickbait sites and want more details. PS: This single-breed club trying to establish the breed is by definition not WP:INDY and is not a reliable source for anything but WP:ABOUTSELF claims (e.g. what they say their breed standard is, how many cats are in their breeding program, etc., but not claims of antiquity or other potentially controversial material). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment support SMcCandlish on redirect and merge to experimental cat breeds list.

Traumnovelle (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Treatise on Cats, the historical written source where the name comes from, might be another potential redirect target, though ideally it should be expanded to actually mention the cats mentioned in the text first. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which redirect target is best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the breeders have stopped their efforts it's less appropriate for List of experimental cat breeds. There are no failed/forgone breeds listed in the article I believe.

Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking further into this, I would oppose redirecting to List of experimental cat breeds, as that would imply a rather oversimplified reductionist view that the name refers only to the newly created breed, when in reality it's an old name, the understanding of which has been quite actively evolving, both in Thailand and among Western breeders. The name is recognised by The International Cat Association, who discussed using Suphalak cats from Thailand (as the term was understood in 2010) for outcrossing to improve genetic diversity in the Burmese breed.[6] There's more info on this at Messybeast.com,[7] which can probably be considered a self-published expert source.
All that said, ideally the article should be rewritten to provide a proper overview covering the history, the evolving terminology, and the relationship to the Burmese breed, in a neutral, descriptive tone. Taking another look at the article, I don't think it's so bad that the current page needs to be removed in the meantime, so I'd be okay with either ~~keeping or temporarily redirecting~~ to Burmese cat, as I mentioned above. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is still not clear where to redirect to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disambiguation? They may be looking for mentions of the historical cat or they may be looking for the modern recreation attempt. There's no distinction between the historically mentioned cats and the contemporary experimental breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there's no distinction suggests that this should be a WP:broad-concept article rather than a plain disambiguation page. In any case, I don't think the re-creation breed needs to be a separate article. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my position to keep. I've added some context to the article that I believe adequately addresses the issues I raised above for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The progress towards consensus has stalled a bit as a prior redirect !vote has been updated to keep. The article has been edited since nomination, it would be helpful if commenters decide if reassessment is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If I saw this before seeing the recent changes, i probably would have !voted to draftify or redirect, but the article looks to be in good shape now. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent changes which clarify its position vs Burmese cat. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:43, 28 February 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.