Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border jack


 * 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   merge to List of dog hybrids. Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Border jack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced for over a year; only one approaching reliable I can find is two sentences long. &mdash; anndelion    &#10059;   09:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  &mdash;  anndelion    &#10059;   09:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete When result in a news search gives you "...border. Jack...", you know you have notability problems.  Unverifiable and unremarkable.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that identifiability is fundamental to notability. However, I think the word here with "border. Jack" is "confounded".  Using the previous respondent's example, i.e., the one that introduces this page for "news", I persisted to page six and found a good reference.  I than added the word "dog" to the search and found more refs and added two of them to the article.  Here are the three that were just added to the article:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Run a regular Google search and you'll see instantly that there IS such a thing as a "Border Jack." This is a terrible little stub, but the copious hits lead me to believe that this stub should stand, that there are probably third-party sources out there... Tag it and keep it. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this cross exists, but there are no reliable sources longer than two sentences available. I'm not sure I agree with keeping an article because there are probably reliable sources covering it -- none of the google hits are suitable references, and a lot of false positives are generated. I've just tagged it in case the consensus is to keep. &mdash; anndelion    &#10059;   01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Verifiable --Reference Desker (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I linked to the first in my rationale/"nominating" statement, and the results in the second don't give any information at all; a passing mention in the news in a completely separate context doesn't make something notable. I have yet to find any reliable resources that say more than the minimum (in one case, two sentences). – anna  10:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm pretty sure that linking to search results doesn't verify notability. The articles within the searches you provided only seemed to mention the "breed" in a passing fashion, far from the significant coverage required by general notability guidelines.  No one questions the fact that the cross-breed exists, the question is whether or not it is notable or at least, an excepted breed within the industry.  The only way to establish that is with reliable sources that provide significant coverage, which doesn't seem to exist.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment- Procedurally, when you want to remove cross-contamination from search results, remove intermediary spacing; "borderjack" -wikipedia has far less clutter, and brings this to the top; not significant coverage, but if considered WP:RS will solve 'unreferenced'; species of plants and animals are presumed WP:N regardless - the only hurdle is whether that extends to dog cross breeds, especially ones with less history. Dru of Id (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dog Breed Info Center isn't really reliable -- it's primarily a haven for breeders who want to advertise, and propagates a lot of misinformation -- but it has a high Google pagerank, so mirrors have popped up. They have pages on many, many mixes, most of them less detailed than even the Border Jack one (which is saying something), so I'm not sure that can be used as evidence of the cross' notability.
 * This is not an interspecific or even intersubspecific hybrid, so that's not really a valid comparison. There are well over 600 dog breeds, but if we only take the 50 most popular, that gives you 1,225 potential mixes. I think letting this one stay is a slippery slope: if "it has two sentences in a reliable book -- it's notable!" is considered a valid rationale, we'll be inundated with two-sentence stubs. – anna  03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Borrowing a line from yours from AfD Talk, here is a more expansive reasoning for my KEEP vote above: Here's the root of the problem: "Species are notable, sure, and de facto all separate, established breeds are as well, but there's nothing addressing crossbreeds." In my view certain of these "crossbreeds" have likely attained critical mass in terms of popular recognition as established types of dogs — Notable Neologisms, if you will. Borderjack seems to me to have more or less attained that mark. Honest people may differ in that assessment, which is what AfD is about — figuring out a consensus. By the way, the golden retriever "breed" was created as a cross-breed between yellow labs, an extinct breed of spaniel, and bloodhounds. That's how breeds are made... Carrite (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Inserted here: 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See, for example: Goldendoodle. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied to your first message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. How is the Goldendoodle relevant to this discussion? They have reached the critical mass you speak of -- media coverage, entire books dedicated, coverage in dog encyclopedias, etc. They certainly pass the general notability guideline. On the other hand, this cross does not, and that's what my issue is with the article. Like I said below to someone, I really am interested in seeing other reliable sources if they exist. "Significant" coverage requires more than two sentences in a "for dummies" book, I would think. – anna  16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester  09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is about a dog breed. It only needs to be expanded. -Porchcrop (talk 09:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Crossbreeds are not breeds and those standards do not apply. Read Dog breed. – anna  21:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to List of dog hybrids. As of now it seems no information can be found beyond a basic sentence or two--this would be a logical choice to hold this information for the less notable hybrid breeds. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs expanison. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to expand upon why the subject is notable? A rationale would be appreciated. – anna  19:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of dog hybrids. This is a ridiculous sub-stub with not much chance that it will ever grow beyond, at most, stub size. Clearly fails WP:GNG. From an organisational point of view it just doesn't make sense to cover this on a separate page. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a dictionary. And no, a hybrid between races is not the same as a species. The species of all dogs is canis lupus (i.e. grey wolf). Hans Adler 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to List of dog hybrids. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this hybrid out there, hence GNG is not satisfied. Okay as a list entry, but not as a standalone article. BryanG (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of dog hybrids seems the most appropriate course of action here.   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- failed previous AfD: Articles_for_deletion/Borderjack – anna  12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly redirect to List of dog hybrids. I am strongly against any kind of "merge", as the source article is wholly unsourced.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  20:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Evidently notable being covered in multiple books. Our editing policy is to keep and develop stubs, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One book, not multiple, unless you've found something that I have not. – anna  22:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, no merge, no redirect Reliable references are referring to this crossbreed.  I just added three newspapers.  This crossbreed is notable enough to be considered a "designer breed" or a "Designer Dog".  I am opposed to redirect or merge, as an editor after a merge or redirect may then delete the material from the target article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Being considered a 'designer dog' requires no notability at all. That said, none of the references you or Colonel Warden have added provide significant coverage -- a brief mention doesn't qualify, I would think. They mention the cross and say nothing beyond that, other than the book I linked to earlier. – anna  10:52, 11 May 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.