Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo (dog)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bo (dog)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dog with a famous owner. Notability is not inherited. Although well sourced, the only thing that makes him notable, is his owner. MikeNicho231 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Laughable. To say his owner is famous is snarky. First Dogs have a long lineage of being part of American pop Culture, since at least Fala.  This is an extremely well sourced article about a dog that generates headlines -- notice plural. Nomination admits notability of the dog.  Bearian (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject has massive coverage in reliable sources which shows notability. Chester Markel (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep More than sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG; see article's References. I am tempted to minnow-slap because no one's arguing for notability thru inheritance. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Bearian.  Nomination acknowledges that the article is well-sourced, no valid basis is articulated for deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A classic example of the misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED. It's intended for topics that have had no significant coverage from reliable sources and not notable, not because the topic became notable due to being related to an already notable person.  If someone is notable, it doesn't matter how they become notable, it's that they are notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep An outrageous and disruptive nom! This is clearly notable and has nothing to do with inherited notability. In addition, the page is very well sourced. It's not yet GA starndards, but this ones close. I agree with Bearian that the nom even admits notability. Outback the koala (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally this article was nominated for AfD and Kept on 12 December, just 2 weeks ago! WP:SNOW this and close admin. Outback the koala (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Has nothing to do with inherited notability. Miyagawa   (talk)  19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not inherited... Which is irrelevant since the dog has itself received enough coverage to be independently notable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bo has received a lot of media coverage. The article is also well put together. -—  AMK152  (t • c) 01:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (snow) - Bo Knows Bo. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The dog's owner is famous but the references surround Bo not Barack, JFK Jr mya only have been famous because of his father, but the reason why he got press coverage has nothing to do with his notability here. Similarly it doesn't matter why Bo is notable, he has gotten press coverage, and that's the litmus test for a wikipedia article. It is therefore not just his relation to Obama that makes him notable but his actual notability notwithstanding the underlying reasons.Thisbites (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2010 (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.