- 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, split down the middle with cogent arguments made by nominator and discussion participants. KrakatoaKatie 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While poodle hybrids in general as a type are very notable, this breed in specific has recieved no significant coverage as defined under WP:N in reliable, published sources that would suggest it is notable. Delete and redirect to the aforementioned article. As a side note: the breed is most likely recognized by the American Canine Hybrid Association. As the sole requirement of breed recognition is a $5 fee, this patently fails the test of reliability. The ACHA is a degree mill for dogs. VanTucky (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Term seems obviously notable; I've added sources. As an outsider, I get the impression that there are strange kennel/breeder politics regarding official breeds and the recognition of hybrids, e.g. The Modern Kennel Conundrum, so I also have some WP:NPOV concerns about the effort to delete dog hybrids (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs#WP:PROD_nominations). (Is there a more specific tag than WP:NPOV that covers this?) Billgordon1099 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately not a single source you added significantly covers the breed alone. These sources are decidedly trivial, comprised of tiny mentions among many other topics. I would also like to indicate that this would seem to be a WP:POINT issue with user Billgordon, as every single contest to a related prod he has made so far included the edit summary "No to deletionism". VanTucky (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nor, of course, are there any sources devoted solely to the Brown-chested Martin; rather, it's covered in a book about swallows. This breed of dog appears to have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources -- the mentions therein are more than trivial, though less than exclusive, as WP:RS requires. To address the WP:POINT issue, remember to assume good faith; people who consistently disagree with you aren't thereby making a WP:Point. (I feel like I've made this argument before.) --TheOtherBob 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep this article. The mentions are absolutely trivial, as they go into no significant detail on the subject. A cursory mention of the dog is not significant coverage. When editors show a long pattern of action that is said by them to be based not on the merits of the situation but on a larger principle (inclusionism/deletionism), then it clearly violates WP:POINT. Assuming good faith does not mean ignoring strong evidence of a pattern of behavior. VanTucky (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm nowhere near WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- your snap response there just misreads the argument. I'm saying that we don't -- and never have -- asked that reliable sources devote themselves solely to one subject in order to be non-trivial. (And gave an example of the way in which we typically apply that.) Indeed, it's right there in WP:RS -- the source must devote significant, but not necessarily exclusive, attention to the subject. The sources cited are far from trivial - they devote several pages to discussing the breed. As to the AGF concept - assume good faith means that you assume that someone with whom you disagree lacks ulterior motives. Here you jumped right to "he has an ulterior motive, so I don't have to assume good faith." Since he has an ulterior motive, you can then assume that his arguments against you, his searching for citations, etc. are meant to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a WP:Point rather than a good-faith belief in his position. (You do understand that accusing someone of violating WP:Point means that you are accusing them of disrupting the encyclopedia, right? If not, then you shouldn't be slinging that around.) But that's (respectfully) nonsense. Disagreeing with you is not a WP:Point. Finding citations for articles you think should be deleted doesn't disrupt the encyclopedia. It's a meritless accusation, and a pretty rude one, and I think you should withdraw it - but I'll leave that to you. --TheOtherBob 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's break this down. Those not in favor of keep are saying that this is better dealt with in the general poodle hybrid article, because this variation is not notable enough on is own to merit an article. Coincidentally, not a single source focuses on the Shih-poo, and only mentions it in relation to poodle hybrids as a whole. Thus, none of these sources prove that the variation is notable. Since you find examples to compare helpful, take a look at Maltepoo. At first glance these two articles look about the same. But the Maltepoo article has a reference that is very significantly dealing with the hybrid, thus proving that Maltepoos are specifically notable. None of the references in the present article do so, only confirming that Shih-poos are worth listing when speaking of poodle hybrids. So the encyclopedia article should, in accordance with the source material, speak of Shih-poos in the context of a larger encyclopedic discussion of poodle hybrids. VanTucky (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do find reference to rules helpful, particularly use of it in precedent. You're proposing a new rule unseen on Wikipedia before: that if a subject has a source devoted entirely to it, then the subject gets its own article, but if the subject only has a section of a larger work devoted to it then the subject will be merged into a larger Wikipedia article. (Or at least that's what I understand you to be saying - what you said earlier was actually that you supported deletion and re-direction rather than a merge. But based on your comment above you may have intended to suggest a merge instead.) That new rule would directly contradict both how we treat other subjects, and the explicit language of WP:RS. Since you're proposing a new rule, what you need to explain is how we would then treat examples like the Brown-chested Martin above -- the proper way to treat it is the way we treat it now: in a separate article. Nonetheless, I could support a merge -- as I have with other "poo dogs" that have less adequate sourcing. I think there's enough sourcing here for an independent article, but it's closer than other hybrids/breeds so a merge could make sense if done correctly. --TheOtherBob 20:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What vital content, that isn't basically the same as all other poodle hybrid stubs, couldn't be merged with the general article? I don't really see any, it's like Zetawoof says below. The "distinguishing characteristics" that are in this article are nearly exactly the same as all other poodle hybrid articles. There is a general notice that they are supposedly quasi-hypoallergneic or at least non-shedding. There is a bunch of uncited nonsense about temperament (I seriously doubt any poodle reference compares their temperament to a Shih-tzu) and the basic definition of what a poodle hybrid is. VanTucky (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect To poodle hybrid. Too obscure to merit its own article, and can be adequately covered in poodle hybrid. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like many articles on minor canine crossbreeds, this article explains what the cross is (i.e, a poodle/shih tzu cross), but fails to explain how it distinguishes itself from any other possible pairing of breeds. Simply explaining that a dog of this breed "will take characteristics from both of its parents" and characterizing the breed as having a "widely varying appearance" doesn't help matters much. It's worth noting that, although this article has a few references, most of them appear to simply be used as references for the name itself, not any characteristics or further information! Zetawoof(ζ) 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep based on the current sourcing in place. • Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 7 September 2007 (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.