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 I'm closing this as a procedural non-consensus. I would have done so much earlier had I sen this afd. It seems from the discussion and the sources available that the individual articles must be disccused separately--the evidence for notability seems strogner for some than for others, but I have no particular opinion of my own about any of them. I point out that according to [[WP:GNG, the existence of sources that meet the notability requirement does not necessarily mean there should be individual articles--a combination article can be a practical solution--such a combination article can be much more extensive than a mere list. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beaglier[edit]

Beaglier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cavoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cockapoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goldador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goldendoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mal-shi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maltipoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Morkie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pekapoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Puggle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Schnoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sheepadoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shih-poo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yorkipoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zuchon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jackabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)later addition Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerberian Shepsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)later addition again Cavalryman (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these designer dog crossbreeds fail GNG. A couple of them are mentioned specifically in the 2007 New York Times Magazine story "The Modern Kennel Conundrum", but a mere acknowledgement that some F1 & F2 crossbred dogs are marketed under a portmanteau does not confer notability. Google shows up the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" from the same authors that pump out identical books retitled for every designer crossbreed imaginable. Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Don't know about the other dogs, but Goldendoodle gets 58 million hits on Google. I would think that constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG. MartinezMD (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of unattributable information on all of the above, but sheer weight of non-RS Google hits does not constitute GNG. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Pretty much all of these are poorly written and serve as outlets for people to dump their pet pictures, but I'm unsure if that would be another reason for deletion. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the trend, I want my dog on Wikipedia, I will create an article from hot air about it. Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. Just when we thought that citing "thehappypuppysite.com" as a reliable source was bad enough....... William Harristalk 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Cavalryman (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I added it back to the list above (removed strikethrough) since the violating content was removed. Schazjmd (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary, thank you for the updates. I agree fully, the broader subject is notable, and the list when reliably sourced contains the main crosses. Cavalryman (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick example of why WP should not be used as a marketing/promotional tool for designer crosses - cruel, not cute. This is the Maltipoo club and registry. Spend a bit of time reviewing the site and compare it to the reputable AKC or KC sites. Sadly, puppy mills are everywhere - it's the quackery and fringe of dog breeding. They sell on Craigs List, and all over the internet where scams run rampant. Atsme Talk 📧 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how is our current Multipoo article at all promotional? I did see some news articles such as this which show you're correct, but I don't know why they wouldn't be added to the article instead of using it as grounds for deletion to help present a NPOV. I also did not come across the Tripod article as a potential source in my search. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question, SF. If you get a chance, see User:Atsme/sandbox. I think it addresses your question. Please feel free to contribute your ideas on the TP of that draft. Atsme Talk 📧 11:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally this would be close to a delete consensus, but the last few comments have brought up new information that needs to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

  • AfD is not an article improvement service and draftification is just backdoor deletion because it stops people from being able to find the articles. Our policy is to develop topics in mainspace, where everyone can find them and pitch in.

    "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ..."

If Cavalryman wants to collaborate to improve an article such as Beaglier, per ((sofixit)), there's nothing stopping him. As it is, all he seems to have done is make a drive-by nomination for deletion with no constructive edits or talkpage discussion. He didn't even make courtesy notifications on the talk pages of the editors who created these articles. Just how are they supposed to discover what has happened to their creations if they are moved elsewhere without notification?
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Andrew. It's also worth noting (as it seems to be frequently misunderstood on AfDs) that notability can be established independently from the status of an article. If the sources above show notability, then the articles should be kept regardless of their current status. And the onus is not on any particular user to improve the article in order to keep it. This is the inherent problem with these mass nominations of articles, which is why I have argued for a complete keep all, with no prejudice to any particular articles being re-nominated and assessed on their individual merit. Bookscale (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This stuff about "true breeds" is unscientific. Per this paper, most dogs have little genetic variation, being descended from "just three original founding females". It follows that "dog breeds do not represent a biological classification; rather hobbyists are responsible". Per WP:NPOV, we have no right or reason to take sides between the various hobby communities and clubs, regardless of how they dignify themselves. I am writing this in London where the Queen is content with her dorgis and her Prime Minister has a Jack Russell cross. If such pillars of society are content with dogs that are not "true breeds", we should likewise be tolerant and accommodating. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not once does that article state that there is very little genetic variation between dog breeds; that is your interpretation of what the sociologists said. Perhaps you might pursue what evolutionary biologists have to say on the topic. That breeds can be identified by their mDNA is proven, and there are numerous businesses that do just that. It is also proven that "pure breeding" leads to deleterious genes - not a good thing for dogs. It is unclear what the term "biological classification" brings to your mind, nobody is arguing that a breed is a subspecies of C. lupus. William Harristalk 10:37, 17 December 2019 (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.