Talk:Ratonero Murciano

Attribution

Text and references copied from Ratonero Murciano de Huerta to Ratonero Bodeguero Andaluz. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Ratonero Murciano de Huerta to Ratonero Valenciano. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Internet articles as sources

7&6=thirteen, I have removed all of the clearly self-published, click-bait, non-RS from the article, giving rationale for each in the edit summaries, per WP:BRD if you wish to reintroduce any of them we should discuss first. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. I have reinstated the article. please refrain from removing portions to favor your desire for deletion. Get consensus. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Classic ARS tactic, just say you disagree and refuse to engage with the actual issues. I have given detailed rationale for every element removed in the edit summaries, per WP:BRD (I have included a link again as you appear unfamiliar with it) you should discuss before reinstating your truely amateurish additions. Please do so or you will be reverted. Cavalryman (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

please stop the personal attacks. We do things by consensus. Your opinions have no consensus ATM. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is we follow policy, please address the concerns I have detailed. Cavalryman (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

We are at loggerheads. Regarding WP:CON it is one of our WP:POLICIES. WP:N and WP:GNG as well as WP:SNGs are all guidelines WP:GUIDES. WP:IAR is also a policy... IAR is somewhat contradictory but yet, there it is in WP:5P5. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to overrule the AFD process.

That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice.

If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Kept and AFD was withdrawn. Sourcing problem has been solved. Res ipsa loquitur 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC) These are the best sources concerning the breed. That books about the subject are "self published" is hardly unusual for a rare breed. And the breed club is the best source on its own standards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Quality of the sources

Apparently you think that Spanish sources are unworthy. No convincing you; so I won't bother. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have reverted a series of edits - rightly or wrongly - with the edit summary of "take it to the talk page." On the talk page, you say that you "won't bother". Under WP:CONSENSUS, you are required to bother. William Harristalk 09:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thirteen, every time I explain to you, with evidence, why your "sources" are clearly not reliable, you refuse to present any evidence or make any arguments to the contrary, but say either something flippant like we disagree then I've already expressed my opinion without actually engaging in the debate, or more frequently you refuse to respond at all. I have detailed at length already, both to you directly and in detailed edit summaries, why all of the "sources" you and your chum have introduced to this article are not RS (not those Neodop found), if I have to reiterate my many concerns again will you respond or revert to form? Cavalryman (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

They are reliable. You and I disagree. Walls of text are not going to convince you. You've proven that over and over. You resort to WP:PA. I consider the source.

Obviously, if there is something to discuss or a real concern, it can be addressed. Neither your opinion nor mine is dispositive. And WP:Conensus will rule. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I see you have decided to revert to form, and I can see you are attempting to pull the same stunt elsewhere. Consensus is achieved through discussion, for it to rule you must discuss. You have asked me here, please address my concerns or I will assume you concede your self-published sources are not suitable. Cavalryman (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

Let us quit with the attacks already. Speaking of "reverting to form".

Which do you think are unreliable and why? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thirteen, quoting your exact words to me, verbatim, and observing that you have done the same again is not a personal attack. To detail again:

Body

• Elliott – self published from enthusiasts who appear to use Wikipedia as major source
• Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano – not independent of the subject
• Canina Nacional ACCM – non-notable kennel club with no official status (yet appear to pretend to have such)
• Vandersteen – self published from an enthusiast
• Judy, Boston Sunday Globe & Lowell Sun - completely irrelevant cite bombing, not about these dogs at all, if you want it anywhere take it to terrier
• Dogell – completely rubbish click bait article from a website that states it “do[es] not endorse, support, represent, or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content”
• Philadelphia Inquirer – equivocation, completely inappropriate content and citation, there is no connection just common terminology for a job performed by dogs with no established link

See also

• all three cites - unnecessary cite bombing for a see also section, the articles themselves are sourced
• the claim In Spain, there are five ratoneros, so called rat-hunting dogs – all local breeds originating in a specific area is OR and simply proves someone can count from a navbox
• all four breeds are listed in both navboxes at the bottom of the page and so should be removed, more you have previously agreed with me on this point at other articles (even thanked me for removing such lists), another editor added it, can we just remove it?

Further reading

• Bailey & Morgan – self published, print-to-order, insert-breed-name-here rubbish
• Manuel – self published from an enthusiast (and also only mentions the breed once in a list)

All these problem or unnecessary sources and the material that is uniquely cited to them needs to be removed from the article, along with the OR. If easier I can tag all of the offending sources so you can see on the page itself.

Two reliable sources were found by another editor during the AfD, they have established notability in my opinion and I certainly will not be nominating this article again, I am now trying to remediate. Those two are the only two reliable sources currently on the page and only they and the information uniquely attributed to them should remain. Cavalryman (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

Why do we want to purge the sources in an article that was just kept? Lets decide to replace rather than erase. The article just scrutiny. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

What needs to happen is the deletion of all of the unreliable or irrelevant sources and any unique information sourced to them, leaving only reliably-sourced material; two sources currently on the article are reliable and relevant. There is no indication that any of the above sources are either reliable or in any way suitable. As to the others, unless a connection can be drawn (using reliable sources) that these dogs are related in some way to American or British terriers, inclusion of those claims is original research. Cavalryman (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC).

The article was nominated for deletion by User:Cavalryman. He contended that notability was not established; and it repeating that contention here. Per the closer: "The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator. ... 24 July 2020 (UTC)" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we reinstate the article that survived AfD and then we get consensus for changes. i.e. changing, the name of the article. And removing large swaths of information such as: origin, appearance, health, See also section, further reading, and 10 of the 12 references.

I am pinging the participants from the AfD which closed as a keep July 24, 2020. User:BD2412, User:Neodop, 7&6=thirteen, User:William Harris, User:Atsme, User:Cavalryman (let me know if Im missed anyone).

• Support as proposer Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Compromise Before we get too procedural with !voting, just want to remember Calvaryman originated the AfD to begin with, and then at some point agreed notability was established and gracefully closed the AfD. And he said he would not open a new AfD. Great! Thank you, seriously. We can be thankful for Calvaryman's honest opinion and compromise. With that said I think we might be able to compromise in turn and recognize Calvaryman has opinions that are not totally unreasonable. There are some problematic sources. Can we pick some of the worst and maybe agree they should be removed, without gutting the whole article? Eventually what happens is somebody else will come along with similar complaint, maybe not right but over time, it becomes a sort of ongoing bruise that never heals which is frustrating. -- GreenC 00:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion GreenC. It is really my hope - the way things have happened: I spent a lot of time on the article, and I found a stub a few weeks later. I think a starting point should be the way the article looked on July 24, 2020 and then we can remove things that we agree on removing. It is messy, but it may be the most fair? Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, I have been trying to get responses to my concerns about these sources for weeks, neither editor advocating reintroduction have responded once. I am very happy to discuss them all.

Lightburst, I oppose returning to the old version, if we wish to I suggest a couple of RFCs; one at WT:Verifiability to overturn WP:SELFPUB and another at WT:No original research to overturn WP:NOR. Cavalryman (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

It makes the most sense to return to a version which survived AfD. i have no idea why a See also is removed? or many of the things, which are not needing sources to improve the layout. So I believe we should start there and start over. I am open to dismissing innap refs, however we have a stub here now. I am not unreasonable Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - We are now where we are now - there is no WP:LEAVEITASITWASATAFD. Issues of poor sourcing have been raised and not addressed (above), and is a separate issue to the AfD and must follow WP:POL. Any new material will need to be appropriately sourced using - what a reasonable person would believe to be - reliable sources. I am in favour of seeking a neutral third opinion(s) as raised by CM (and which has not been replied to), because the current discussion is going nowhere and will end "not well". William Harristalk 01:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, reiterating again for this discussion my objections to many cites inserted during the AfD:

• Body

• Elliott [1] – does not pass WP:SELFPUB:

• the webpage is self published with a number of contributors, the site editor's only qualification is she attended university, and the other listed staff member of the site is her pet beagle, there does not appear to be any other editorial oversight
• whilst the articles appear to be written by vets, a degree in veterinary medicine may make one an expert in veterinary care, it in no way makes one an authority on domestic animal breeds or types, I can find no evidence that any of the contributors are established experts on the subject matter (being dog breeds)
• Wikipedia appears to have been one of the major sources used in many of the articles, a clear example is their List of extinct dog breeds is almost identical to our List of extinct dog breeds (even using our disambiguation) and most of photographs on the site are attributed to Wikipedia or Commons

• Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano [2] – clearly not independent of the subject

If there were any way to verify this to be the breed's official club we could possibly use this source selectively in a section to discuss what they believe about the breed and some physcical characteristics, but we need to remember there are no RS stating that this is the breed club mentioned in the two RS that established the article's notability

• Canina Nacional ACCM [3] – completely non-notable kennel club with no official status, as I have demonstrated elsewhere they are not mentioned in any of the official Spanish government Royal Decrees that they cite on the page, completely unsuitable as a source
• Vandersteen [4] – does not pass WP:SELFPUB, dog enthusiast's own webpage
• Judy [5], Boston Sunday Globe [6] & Lowell Sun [7] - completely irrelevant cite bombing, not about these dogs at all, if you want it anywhere take it to terrier
• Dogell [8] – completely rubbish click bait article from a website that states it “do[es] not endorse, support, represent, or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content”
• Philadelphia Inquirer [9] – equivocation, per two points above, completely inappropriate content and citation, there is no connection just common terminology for a job performed by dogs with no established link whatsoever, someone has shown they can type the term "rat terrier" or similar into a search engine

• See also [10]

• the claim In Spain, there are five ratoneros, so called rat-hunting dogs – all local breeds originating in a specific area is OR and simply proves someone can count from a navbox
• all three cites - unnecessary cite bombing for a see also section, the articles themselves are sourced
• all four breeds are listed in both navboxes at the bottom of the page and so it is completely unnecessary over-linking

NB if consensus is to reintroduce them to a see also section, they should just be links with no other commentary as to do so would be OR

• Further reading

• Bailey & Morgan – self published, print-to-order, insert-breed-name-here rubbish, completely unsuitable for inclusion
• Manuel – self published from an enthusiast (and also only mentions the breed once in a list), completely unsuitable for inclusion

I have been seeking responses to the above for a number of weeks, neither contributor who added them have responded despite leaving edit summaries like take it to the talk page. I welcome any clear evidence to the contrary. Cavalryman (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Sorry I didn't see you had reposted here, I just responded in the section above. -- GreenC 01:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry Cavalryman but my frustration with this somewhat reverse process is high - it is like you are the gatekeeper. Your deletion of nearly everything returning it to a stub status is overwhelming. I have no idea how you became the owner of the whole article (apologies if that sounds confrontational). I am also a bit offended that you have basically told me all of my efforts on this article were shit and then erased them - I added many layout improvements, sections and references. You have a disagreement with the process and with the assessment of the refs. Self published books about a rare breed are not verboten, they are just not to be the basis for the article - two editors disagreed with their removal. Whole sections were removed such as: origin, appearance, health, and the SEE ALSO section, FURTHER READING, and 10 of the 12 references were removed. Lets start with See also...what was wrong with it? Because that fact that the article was stubified was not acceptable to me. And thanks for coming here and contributing user:William Harris Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You have still not responded to any of the above with any evidence to the contrary. Further, I responded to your last contribution on the TP (in which you did not object the removal of anything) and after waiting for five days I assumed you were happy with my response. Cavalryman (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Your assumption was wrong. I cannot wade through the walls of text easily. I am feeling this way because I feel that you did an end run around the process. Imagine if I had undone all of your work, and said it was nonsense. That is why I want to start with something easy, like see also, and further reading. Why erase them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Per the reasons articulated (reiterated) above. Cavalryman (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

I do not know what you mean. Most very other has a see also - but you erased the section. ==See also==

Spanish Ratoneros

In Spain, there are five ratoneros, so called rat-hunting dogs – all local breeds originating in a specific area:

• Ratonero Bodeguero Andaluz, Andalusian Ratter
• Ratonero Mallorquín, Majorca Ratter
• Ratonero Valenciano, Valencian Ratter
• Villanuco de Las Encartaciones, Basque Ratter Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• List of dog breeds

LB, I hope you don't mind me amending the sub-section format, I think it unnecessarily split the conversation. I have clearly articulated above my objections to the see also section that you added to the article, I would however support the inclusion of List of dog breeds. Cavalryman (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Response to source concerns :

• Elliott ("self published") - she is an expert (a Doctor). We often accept expert opinion from self-published sources. Can we demonstrate Wikipedia is a/the source? If so that makes it unreliable.
• Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano ("not independent") - Official associations are some of the best sources of information we have. It would strange and biased to exclude leading official associations on any topic. I'm not even sure it counts as not independent given that dogs are non-human, they can't have a dependent relationship with a source, or not one that matters in terms of why we have the rule. It might be considered a primary but that is OK per WP:PRIMARY.
• Canina Nacional ACCM ("non-notable kennel club") - notability is not a requirement for sourcing. The word "notable" does not appear at WP:RS. Context of what is being cited is relevant to importance of the source. It is factual, common knowledge or surprising information?
• Vandersteen ("self published enthusiest") - this is true, it is not reliable.
• Judy, Boston Sunday Globe & Lowell Sun ("cite bombing") - unable to access these two.
• Dogell ("completely rubbish click bait") - not click bait as no evident revenue generating mechanisms (other than minor donation plea), appears to be legit hobby run site at a proam level. For basic factual information it is probably OK though not ideal if something better existed.
• Philadelphia Inquirer ("irrelevant") - unable to access this source.

Additional sources were removed. In this diff it would be cite #3, #5, #7, #12, #13, #14 .. is there a reason for removing these? -- GreenC 01:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest you move your above contribution to this section to avoid split discussions. Moved response. With regard to what you have stated, if we cannot establish the authenticity of an organisation, we cannot use them as a source. With regard to Dr Pippa Elliot, as I have said being a doctor does not make her an authority on this subject matter, there is nothing to suggest she is. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I gave a detailed response could you respond the same dealing with each cite individually including the 6 with no rationale? BTW I just noticed this is now part of a toxic ANI discussion and I wonder if now is the best time for this. -- GreenC 02:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenC,

• Elliott - per WP:SELFPUB "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." (Italics mine) There is no evidence Elliott meets that threshold, yes she is a doctor but that establishes nothing, I can find no indication that she has previously been published by reliable, independent publications in this field.
• Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano & Canina Nacional ACCM, we need something reputable to establish these organisations are what they purport to be, otherwise they could be a hoax (I don't believe they are, but my beliefs are not acceptable). I have searched, extensively in the case of the latter, and cannot find anything that establishes this. As their actual existence cannot be verified, they do not meet the threshold to be included even as primary sources (I would very much like to be able to use the former).
• Dogell there is insufficient information to determine what the site is, there are no authors and/or editors cited so there is no way to work out what this apart from a mechanism to generate advertising revenue, as such it needs to be treated as self published.
• I am unsure what you are saying about that old version of the page, one of the sources listed is one still on the page and I believe the others are all addressed.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Further, I agree the timing of this proposal is suspect. I will point out that I have objected to all of the above from the very moment of inclusion, for the reasons stated, and I believe this proposal is retaliation for ANI comments, noone raised responded to attempts at discussion for almost 10 days or the removal of these sources for almost 5 days. Cavalryman (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Whose proposal is retaliation? BTW I do plan to respond to the above but I want to take the time it requires and my other life takes priority. For the missing cites, maybe I am mistaken and I am getting a little confused, but there are 14 cites listed in this diff. Subtract 2 which you agree to keeep. Subtract 7 which you take issue with above. That's 9, leaving a difference of 5. Which 5 are missing from the discussion? Can you verify if #12, #13, and #14 have been discussed because it doesn't appear so.. Which leaves two more which I'm having trouble determining at the moment. -- GreenC 12:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• I definitely support re-insertion of the information from Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano, per my comments in the previous AfD discussion. I see no evidence that the information from it is controversial at all, and attempts to discredit it are just based on unproven theories. An official source can be taken at its word for basic statements of fact unless there is a better source contradicting it. I generally agree with GreenC's attempts at a compromise, and I propose the compromise be to keep Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano as a source, but exclude the rest. One possibility is starting an RfC on whether to re-insert information from Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano as a reliable source.Patiodweller (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the source I have the least objection to. If used, it needs to be treated as a primary source with everything stating the “according to the Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano” etc. And as a primary source, it cannot be used to cite the majority of the article. Cavalryman (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC).

BTW, this source did not establish the subject’s notability, per WP:GNG a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it, as a breed club affiliated with the breed this is very much not independent of the subject. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC).

• Generally oppose; see my analysis of these "sources" below. While some trivial material could be restored, much of what was removed was off-topic blather, and most of the rest was preposterous and misleading promotional claims by the two local breeder/fancier associations trying to establish this as a breed (more than a decade ago, with no indication of having succeeded).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone emailed the experts in this field?

Did anyone try to contact anyone who has written about this and asked about their sources? Dream Focus 02:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are no sources. That is because this "breed" does not exist.

• Three ratonero are recognised as national breeds by the Spanish government under legislation. These do not include Ratonero Murciano.
• Spanish Wikipedia knows nothing about this dog, according to our Spanish colleagues there are only three Ratonero in Spain, matching the legislation.
• The Canine Society of Murcia does not recognise it, only the Ratonero Bodeguero Andaluz and the Ratonero Valenciano (Rater Valenciá)
• This dog is not recognised by any kennel club, despite the claims that they were brought to Spain by the Romans from Egypt (which is a variation on "brought by Phoenician sailors" that we have seen with other such claims - they must have had much dog diversity in old Phoenicia and Egypt).
• There is an "association" titled La asociación canina pide que el perro ratonero murciano (one breeder with a good logo?) that claims to have found an ancient breed that nobody else has noticed and that was "going extinct", but due to their efforts they may be able to "breed it back", whatever that term means. Experienced members of WikiProject Dogs continue to come across that same story, where a breeder purports to have control over a rare type of dog and claim it to be a breed. Once it is recognised they have a business advantage.
• Currently, the article is supported by only two media reports occurring in "The Opinion" and "The Truth", no doubt fed by the "association", dated 2009 that purports this dog is being put forward for recognition. That was 11 years ago, there is no word on what happened. Perhaps it went extinct, or perhaps it was simply a type of village dog and not a breed.
• As for the organisation called the "Canine Association of the Autonomous Community of Murcia" which hosted the Ratonero Murciano "breed standard", it would appear that its website is defunct. Not an encouraging sign; one wonders about its relationship with the "association", and if the "association" still exists.
• There appears to be no reliable secondary sourcing on this dog, either in English or Spanish. Yet it remains as an existing breed here on the English Wikipedia. William Harristalk 01:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The breed plainly exists and has existed for a long time. This version of the Wikipedia article and sources (before it was expurgated by Cavalryman) establishes that. Breed denial does not make it so. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This topic is just WP:NFT crap, and should not have an article here. No notable and reputable organizations or other sources on dog breeds recognize this, nor do national regulatory authorities (which kinda-sorta matter in some jurisdictions when it comes to livestock breed establishment and control, though generally not for pet animals, anyway). Re: "breed it back", see Breeding back. In short, it's pseudo-scientific nonsense. It's the creation of a new selectively bred stock to look like something extinct or nearly extinct, and then market it as the lost creature "restored". Re: "The breed plainly exists and has existed for a long time." Except not. There are not any reliable or even vaguely credible sources maintaining these claims, only promotional breeder materials that actually blatantly contradict their own assertions if you actually read the "argument" they lay out.

Let's look at the "sources", including in the old version of the page:

• DogZone – Categorically unreliable source per WP:UGC (or maybe even single-author WP:SPS; it's hard to be certain), and just parroting breeder claims anyway. Every single statement in this is just a summarization of more blathery material in ACCAM's promotional material (below).
• ACCAM – Advertising, and clearly non-WP:INDY. The breeder group trying to establish a breed is the least reliable source for potentially controversial claims about the animal variety in question. Any claim that a breed or other population is ancient/historical is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. The ACCAM piece is highly fantastical promotional material, a massively rambling hand-wave, which can be summarized as follows: Spain has a long history involving lots of groups of people moving in. They brought dogs. Dogs have served various purposes, including as terriers (ratters). Some such dogs were in Murcia, as everywhere else. Some historical terms for dogs in the area translate as "garden dog" or "ditch dog". [Why do we care?] They killed a bunch of rats, and the farmers were happy. Lots of cross-breeding happened, from at least the 16th to 20th centuries, and terriers from this area compare pretty well to those in other areas. [So far this tells us nothing about this alleged breed.] Ca. 1935, Pedro Manzanera Cano started selectively breeding some dogs from this area, but for hunting. He was quite the aficionado of them, but did not sell them, though at least two specimens from his personal breeding program are known to have been in the possession of other people. Regardless, he also cross-bred them with other dogs. [I.e., he started developing a breed, and then instead produced a mongrelized cross-breed. However, it's careful to point out – for unclear reasons – that crosses with the Chihuahua and with pinschers were avoided in particular.] Dogs descended from his breedings are virtually gone now, but since 1997 some people in the area have been trying to create some new stock that look like his dogs. Two local groups of breeders/fanciers, including ACCAM, are [or were, at the time of that writing] working on conformance standards. And they're big into the history of Murcia, its horticulture [in need of protection from rodents], "and the life of our ancestors". [I.e., this is pure Romanticism.] It concludes with a bald-faced assertion for which there is no actual evidence: "The Murcian Ratter and its ancestors have evolved as an autochthonous canine breed arriving in parallel and shared at all times the history of a community with its own culture and personality, the Autonomous Community of Murcia." In fact, the history as laid out in that article [or whatever you want to call it] contradicts this idea entirely: the breed-in-progress is extremely recent, an attempt to breed-true a terrier that re-creates the general look of a quasi-breed someone was working on several generations ago as a hunting (not terrier) dog, but which was itself a cross-breed. The foundation stocks of that earlier experiment were themselves cross-bred landraces, mostly but not entirely of terriers, based in turn on varied canine stocks of very widely dispersed origins, since Spain has been invaded over and over again by different peoples, who brought lots of dogs with them. So, basically this is all just promotional "spin" – lots of blather trying to imply an "ancient breed" when the facts are clearly the opposite. And it's the furthest thing from an independent source.
• Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano – Ditto. This is the other breeder group trying to establish this as a breed. It's making the same bogus claims, and then also presents its draft breed standard. That last part is okay as WP:ABOUTSELF material (the issuer of a breed standard is the most reliable source for what the breed standard says, of course). But this does not mean this is a breed in any encyclopedic sense. Every attempt to establish a breed has one of these, and the vast majority of attempts to establish new breeds fail. It is not a trivial undertaking.
• La Verdad: National newspaper report, the important part of which is (sans repetition of unfounded "ancientness" b.s. taken directly from ACCAM): "The Murcian canine association expects the Ministry of the Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs to approve the official breed standard of the native breed of the Murcian ratter dog.... The General Directorate of Livestock of the Government of Murcia has already recognized the Murcian terrier as an indigenous breed." So, we have WP:CRYSTAL stuff, followed by the first glimmer of this being recognized as a breed by anyone other than its promoters. But it's only a regional body, which has a large vested interest in promoting local businesses' claims to have developed something "symbolic" of the region and profitably marketable. So, WP:INDY is at stake again.
• La Opinión de Murcia: Local news summary repetition of the coverage from La Verdad, plus peripheral material about a then-upcoming dog show. However, it has one key point in it: "there are Murcian Ratters with a pedigree of up to three generations". I.e. this "breed" is still extremely early in its development. Two to three generations is nowhere near enough to establish a breed. Notably, both of these articles are more than a decade old. If we have no further and more solid proof that a breed has been established and accepted beyond its promoters and one local agency that has a strong promotional interest in having the back of local businesses like those promoters, then we have nothing to write an encyclopedia article about.
• Milou mon Chouchou, mon ami: Categorically unreliable source per WP:UGC and WP:SPS. This is just some guy's personal dog-blog with an attached forum. The material in it (other than the forum) is tertiary at best, consisting of summaries of dog breed info pulled from other websites. Here, it simply summarized ACCAM's claims. And it does so very poorly, introducing obvious falsehoods, e.g.: "By the 18th century, the Ratier de Murcia had developed into the form known today."
• Sheboygan Press: Does not appear to have anything to do with this alleged breed, but was simply a thrice-redundant "add-on" citation for the basic claim that terriers are good ratters. We only need one source for that not three, and it's the furthest thing from controversial (the entire purpose of that group of breeds is ratting). Regardless, it does nothing to help establish notability, nor to establish that this is an actual breed rather than an attempt to establish a breed.
• Boston Sunday Globe: Ditto.
• Lowell Sun: Ditto.
• Dogell: WP:SPS + WP:CIRCULAR. Not only is this someone's advice/clickbait blog that is just a tertiary-and-then-some regurgitation of material from other places, it is clearly cribbing directly from Wikipedia itself.
• Philadelphia Enquirer: Cited only for the non sequitur "In 1914, the Philadelphia Inquirer included an entry for a mixed-breed ratter dog.", which has nothing in particular to do with the subject of this article. Well, it does accidentally: all three of the things that could plausibly be called ratoneros murcianos – historical landrace dogs, Manzanera Cano's mid-century strain, and the post-1997 new lines – are "mixed-breed ratter dogs", though the current effort could potentially actually produce a distinct breed at some point.
• Las Razas Españolas, Real Sociedad Canina de España: Cited only for the existence and names of two actually established and recognized breeds; this one is not among them.
• Club del Ca Rater Mallorquí: Same story, but cited for existence and name of another breed.
• Los 26 tesoros de nuestra comunidad: Ditto.

In short, there's just nothing here. In 2009, there was some noise that might have led somewhere eventually, but was not encyclopedic even then. More than a decade later, we have no indication that efforts to establish a breed have succeeded. This should probably just go to WP:AFD again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)