Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corgi-Chihuahua


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Corgi-Chihuahua

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I cannot find any reliable sources discussing this hybrid. The current article consists of original research and original synthesis based on descriptions of each dog breed. Mangostar (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything demonstrating notability using Google, News, Books. The closest thing to a WP:RS is this web page, and it ain't that close. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep.  References should be improved, but there are some sources out there for the Chigi  although whether they are reliable is another question.--Deadly&forall;ssassin 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is wikipedia is going to do an article for every new "Designer breed" hybrid that people come up? Currently I am Neutral about this article because I don't know if this hybrid is notable. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like this sort of article is nothing new . I don't see why major or popular cross-breeds shouldn't be included to be honest. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is original synthesis at its worst. There are 12 sources, one about a Google search, but most about either Chihuahua, or about a Corgi, in an attempt to confirm that "this mixture was bound to happen".  If you place a male and a female dog, each of a different breed, in the same yard, a mixture is bound to happen. Like Leho says, we can't do an article about every single hybrid out there.  There's nothing cited so far that this is a notable hybrid.  It's worth a mention in the article about Hybrid dogs, but that's it. Mandsford (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep To the person who said "I don't see why major or popular cross-breeds shouldn't be included to be honest." Thanks for that. If this article is deleted simply because this hybrid is not a common one, then to be fair every hybrid dog article needs to be deleted. Question is, where do you draw the line? The Tibetian Mastiff has been around for thousands of years but just became AKC recognized a couple years ago. Should the article on it have been deleted prior to AKC registration? *Furthermore, as the author of the artice, having put a good amount of effort into looking things up, learning the way to code a Wikipedia article, and making it a point to use the dog breed template, I feel all I am hearing here is "this article stinks and the author should be beat to a pulp for being a moron" when what I think "here is the problem with the article, and how you can improve it" would be more in the sprit of Wikipedia. *Finally, I am a little confused about this 'orginal synthesis' thing. How can anything that is not plagarism not be original synthesis?WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment on my talk page, I have no problem with articles on cross-breeds in particular. The problem is that there are no reliable sources that discuss this cross-breed. If you can find reliable sources, please do, and note that in this debate.  "Original synthesis" just means there are no reliable sources available about this hybrid in particular.  You simply took sources about each of the breeds individually (that is, sources about chihuahuas by themselves and sources about corgis by themselves) and synthesized (combined) them to draw your own conclusions about what characteristics the hybrid breed has. Mangostar (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mandford. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Sean Whitton / 14:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mandsford. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Mansford. Almost all the references are either about Corgi or about Chihuahua breeds individually. No significant coverage of the hybrid breed itself to show its notability. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  KEEP -Heavily Edited by article creator All original thought, oops I mean 'original synthesis' has been removed. Non-portmanteu name section will remain as it is translation from Welsh to English to Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaxonWaxov (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just struck the !vote because you're only allowed one bolded vote comment. You already voted keep above. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * oops. 75.181.44.27 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not every combination of two breeds is notable - there are hundreds of AKC-recognized breeds, and thus tens of thousands of possible pairings (even once you exclude the totally implausible ones). Lacking any documentation that this is a particularly popular pairing, and noting in particular the article's admission that "this hybrid is not very common", there's no reason to preserve it. Google searches for the article's title and Spanish dictionary entries for the words "dwarf" and "dog" don't cut it as sources. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact there is apparently not a hundred puppy mills out there cranking these dogs out by the gross is NOT is good reason to delete the article. You mention the AKC. Does that mean every dog breed that is not AKC recognized should not have an article? If a person owns a particular hybrid and there is no article for it, then what exactly does it hurt if that person creates the article as long as there is no 'original synthesis' or copyright infringement? That is where this article currently stands. The Google search you mention is used to demonstrate that this hybrid is called a number of different portmanteau names, nothing more.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that there doesn't appear to be any community of breeders of this dog is a good reason to delete the article, though, as is the fact that the article is an example of original synthesis (as there are no reliable sources to base it upon). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait I would like at this time to request that the deletion process for this article be put on hold so I can attempt to find better sources for it. I just got a lead on a book that might be able to help me. Thanks. --WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this Googlewhack-worthy portmanteau which is essentially OR/SYN. If the breed becomes notable in the future, it won't be a problem to find actual reliable sources. Frank  |  talk  19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a break already Why is it I feel like the "cool kids" of Wikipedia are ganging up on me here? As I've said before, what is going to be the measuring stick here? AKC Registration? The fact that a breed is 'notable' because there is a lot of puppy mills out there produing the breed? If the former, then please say so "yes, AKC recognition is required for an article" and I will hapily support deleting every other hybrid article. If the later, "yes, only hybrids that are 'notable' will be tolerated" then I would to point out the AKC-recognized breed Nova_Scotia_Duck-Tolling_Retriever. You will note that not only was is nothing more than a hybrid breed FIVE years ago (prior to full AKC recognition) but is it also VERY uncommon. So by the rationale that a breed must be 'notable' should the Toller article be removed as well?--WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is ganging up on you here. I chose this AfD to participate basically at random. Speaking for myself, I would like to see the basic WP:N requirements to be satisfied: that is, significant coverage of this hybrid specifically by reliable sources, such as books, articles in newspapers and magazines, etc. Taking your example of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever for comparison, such in-depth coverage of that breed is easy to find. E.g. a GoogleNews search for "Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever" gives 138 hits, several of them articles specifically about the breed itself, such as and an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. The same search in GoogleBooks gives 143 hits, again including some specifically about the breed, such as . By comparison, a GoogleNews search for "Corgi-Chihuahua" returns 10 hits, all of which appear to be passing mentions. The same search of GoogleBooks gives 5 hits, again none of which providing in-depth coverage of the breed. It seems pretty clear that "Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever" passes WP:N while "Corgi-Chihuahua" does not. If you can find other reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the Corgi-Chihuahua hybrid, that these searches do not fish out, then great, otherwise the article will have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2008 (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.