Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Retriever


 * 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   delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian Retriever

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dogbreedinfo.com has been deemed an unreliable source previously, so don't throw that out there! I haven't found coverage in any suitable sources whatsoever. Anna talk 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.   Anna talk 18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - How does the Dog Wikiproject regard the notability of mixed breed dogs? Personally, anything that's referenced so often on the web (see a google search, google news search (returns zero), and a google news archive search (returns 10 hits)), is usually notable.  I'm not saying that a # of hits implies notability but it, very generally, it means that enough people are talking/thinking/writing about it for it to be notable.  I'm guessing the Dog Wikiproject has discussed this issue at length and come up with a much better answer than anything we'll come up with at this AfD.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion here, though it never really went anywhere: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs/Dog_breeds_task_force/Archive_2 Designer crosses are typically measured against the general notability guideline. Perhaps some people are thinking about these dogs but no reliable information is published (except that it's a cross between the Aussie and Golden). Also, bear in mind that "Australian Retriever" is prone to false-positives, and I see a few in the Google News results.
 * Here are two previous AfDs that you may be interested in reading through: Articles for deletion/Corgi-Chihuahua, Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo
 * I just can't see how most are worthy of standalone articles. A list would be okay if not for the following: there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these designer dogs, most exactly like this one (lacking coverage in reputable sources). The notable ones, which include Goldendoodle, Cockapoo, and Puggle, are perfectly valid albeit in need of more robust sourcing. Anna talk 19:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. With the number of recognized breeds, assuming notability of every plausible combination would result in a large amount of under-sourced articles.  I can't see how a designer breed is notable without passing WP:GNG.
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. "Australian Retriever" produces no Google New search hits.  A Google News Archive search produces 8 hits, none of which are coverage of the breed at all; only mentions of or coverage of dogs who are Australian Retrievers (lost/found dog, describing the dog of an owner who was interviewed during coverage of an event).  It seems obvious to me that there's some coverage out there that assumes that the breed exists but I don't feel that this breed (or any designer breed without significant coverage) can have WP:IAR applied to support an article.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent indication of notability given, or found. Miyagawa   (talk)  21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.